Allowed

Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Urban Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2017MCA/828/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court interpreted nomination rules under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Rules, 2010 regarding councillor strength. It allowed the writ petition retaining a BJP nominee while directing the President to accept Congress' nominee within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's writ petition is allowed; Respondent No. 5 retained as BJP's nominated councillor; Respondent No. 3 shall accept Congress's nominee within three weeks.

Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande and Another Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

0408mca828.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

MCA (CAR) NO. 828 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2017

¶5

(Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. Ministry of Urban Department & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,_____________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ROHIT B. DEO, JJ. AUGUST 04, 2017.

¶8

Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri N.H. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, Shri Anand Parchure with Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 7 and Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶9

As the order dictated on 01.08.2017 is already cancelled and wiped out, Misc. Civil application is disposed of as infructuous. No costs.

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2017

¶11

Heard finally with the consent of respective

¶12

parties.

¶13

The submission is, in view of provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Qualifications and Procedure for

¶14

¶15

0408mca828.17

¶16

Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 2010 Rules), the petitioners who represent Congress Municipal Party in Municipal Council, Nagbhid, are entitled to have one nominated member and the other Municipal Party viz., Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) can have only one nominated member. Respondent No. 7 – President of Municipal Council has arbitrarily nominated Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 of BJP as nominated members of Municipal Council.

¶17

The learned AGP does not dispute the mathematical exercise.

¶18

Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel states that respondent No. 5 is the first nominated member on behalf of BJP Municipal Party and hence his name needs to be retained.

¶19

Nobody appears for respondent No. 6, the other member nominated by BJP Municipal Party.

¶20

Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 – President, submits that instructions from respondent No. 7 are still awaited.

¶21

A perusal of provisions of Rule 3 & Rule 5 of 2010 Rules clearly show that fraction, if it is one half (0.5) or above, needs to be rounded off to full. If it is less, it needs to be ignored. The total strength of elected

¶22

¶23

0408mca828.17

¶24

Councillors in Municipal Council, Nagbhid is 18. 10 out of it belong to BJP while 8 belong to Congress Municipal Party. Thus, the proportion of representation insofar as determination of number of nominated Councillors is concerned, it works out to 1.11 : 0.88. Thus, the portion 0.11 in above equation needs to be ignored. As Congress Municipal Party is entitled to nominate 0.88 candidate, rounding off, it becomes one. Thus, Congress as also BJP, both are entitled to have one nominated Councillor.

¶25

In this situation, we retain Respondent No. 5 as nominated Councillor of BJP Municipal Party. Respondent No. 3 shall accept the nomination made by Congress Municipal Party and accept its nominee as its nominated Councillor on Municipal Council, Nagbhid. This exercise shall be completed within next three weeks.

¶26

Writ Petition is thus allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

*GS.

Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Urban Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Panjabrao Gawande and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Urban Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Sonam D/O Ashok Baitalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, Mumbai and Others

Rasika Rajesh Pohare Vs Director General of Health Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Govt. of India) and Anr.

Expo India Exhibition Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Anilkumar K.P. Director of Expo. India Exh. Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Other

Purushottam Gopal Sorate Vs Superintending Engineer, Maha. State Distribution Company Ltd., Bhandara and Another

Lekraj Ganpatrao Dhakate Vs Superintending Engineer, Maha. State Distribution Company Ltd., Bhandara and Another

M/S Ajanta Minerals, through Managing Partner, Shri. Rajendra Purushottam Tank, Nagpur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mumbai