holding these elections. It is submitted that the procedure which was adopted by the Municipal Commissioner was illegal and contrary to the rules. On the other hand, Mr. Anturkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that section 29A(4) clearly stipulates that the term of office of an elected Chairperson would come to an end on the beginning of new financial year which commences on 1st April of every year. He submitted that the Commissioner, therefore, had to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding election of the new chairman who was to be appointed on expiry of the term of the earlier chairman. It is submitted that the Petitioners ought to have held first meeting in April, so that new chairmen could have been elected. He submitted that the contention of the Petitioners that since they were entitled to continue for a period of 8 months, no such meeting was held is contrary to section 27A(9). It is submitted that since no steps were taken by the Petitioners for holding first meeting in the month of April, the Municipal Commissioner had convened the meeting as per amended rules and on 2nd May, 2013 new Chairmen had been appointed. It is therefore, submitted that the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
