Beni Sk. Ganga Beniwale vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3130 Bom

                                                                                                                                              wp1925-15
                                                                                  1




                                                                                                                                            
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                        
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                              WRIT PETITION No.1925 OF 2015




                                                                                                       
    Beni Sk. Ganga Beniwale, 
    Abed adult, Occu. Councilor, 
    Municipal Corporation, Akola, 
    R/o Gawlipura, Near Akot Motor Stand, 
    Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.                                                                 ...                     ... Petitioner. 




                                                                                 
                                                ..Versus..
                                                    
    1.      The Divisional Commissioner, 
            Amravati Division, Amravati. 
                                                   
    2.       The Commissioner, 
             Municipal Corporation, Akola, 
             Tq. & Dist. Akola. 
           


    3.       Nakirkhan Ahmadkhan,
        



             Aged adult, Occu. Councilor, 
             Akola Municipal Corporation, 
             Akola, R/o Lalbagla, Bait Pura, 
             Akola, Tq. & Dist.Akola.                                                         ...                     ...    Respondents.





    .......................................................................................................................................................

Mr. M.A. Vaishnav, advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent no.1.

Mr. S.S. Sohoni, advocate for respondent no.2. .......................................................................................................................................................

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED : 23 rd JUNE, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned

counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioner is aggrieved

.....2/-

wp1925-15

by the order dated 30th March, 2015 by which the respondent no. 1 has held

that the respondent no. 3 was the group leader of the front comprising of five

members.

2. The petitioner and the respondent no.3 are elected councilors of

respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation. Initially, the petitioner was elected

as the group leader of the front by name 'Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi'. A

communication to that effect was issued by the respondent no.1 on 7.6.2012.

Thereafter, on 25.2.2015 a communication was issued by the respondent no.1

to the respondent no.2 pursuant to which the group leaders of various fronts

were called upon to submit necessary documents for fresh verification.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner on 12.2.2015 issued a communication to the

respondent no.2 that he continued to be group leader of the concerned

Aghadi. On 5.3.2015, the respondent no.1 called upon the members of the

said Aghadi to remain present on 10.3.2015 for verifying the aspect pertaining

to group leader. After conducting said exercise the respondent no.1 held that

the petitioner had ceased to be the group leader and that the respondent no.3

would now act as the group leader. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed

the present petition.

3. Shri Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the impugned order indicates that the resolution dated 5.3.2015 was

.....3/-

wp1925-15

passed by the said front seeking to change its leader. He submitted that the

petitioner did not receive any notice of such meeting and therefore any

resolution passed in such meeting could not have been relied upon. He

further submitted that a show of holding a meeting on 2.3.2015 came to be

made but no notice in that regard was received by the petitioner. Relying

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Haribhau Kale Vs.

Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others in Civil Appeal No. 2080 of 2015 he

submitted that election of new leader has to be done in the similar democratic

manner by which the earlier leader was elected. He then submitted that

objection raised by the petitioner on 10.3.2015 in that regard was not taken

into consideration by the respondent no.1. He, therefore, submitted that the

impugned order was liable to be taken back.

4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned AGP for the respondent no.1,

relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 on record. He

submitted that the resolution in question was dated 2.3.2015 and that no such

resolution was passed on 5.3.2015. The resolution dated 2.3.2015 was

received by the office of the respondent no. 1 on 5.3.2015. He submitted that

the impugned order was rightly passed considering the fact that the majority

was with respondent no.3.

5. Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2

.....4/-

wp1925-15

submitted that the dispute was particularly between the petitioner and

respondent no.3.

6. I have perused the documents filed on record. The same indicate

that initially the petitioner had been elected as the leader of the group.

Thereafter, on 27.2.2015 a notice for convening a meeting on 2.3.2015 was

issued. The notice issued to the petitioner bears the endorsement of he

having refused to accept the said notice. Pursuant thereto, on 2.3.2015

resolution no. 3 came to be passed by three members out of total five

members. The respondent no. 1 accepted said resolution and accordingly

declared the respondent no.3 to be the leader of said group.

7. The question whether the petitioner was served with a notice of

the said meeting or whether he refused to accept the same is a disputed

question which cannot be adjudicated in the present petition. Even otherwise,

the question as to whether the person likely to be affected in the process of

change of leader of the front and his right to be heard has been considered by

the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4664/2008 ( Mahadeo

Bhaiyalal Bundele Vs. State of Maharashtra) decided on 1.12.2008. It has

been held that the aspect of changing the party leader is matter between the

councillors and such change can be effected at any point of time. Even

otherwise, the front consisted of five members, out of which three members

.....5/-

wp1925-15

resolved to appoint the respondent no. 3 as its leader. The presence of the

petitioner would, therefore, have hardly made any difference and the view of

the majority would have to be accepted as per resolution dated 2.3.2015.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to interfere in writ

jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

Hirekhan

...../-