Dismissed

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak and Ors. v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Latur

Bombay HC4 Jan 2017WP/1116/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the Municipal Council failed to follow Section 101 of the Act for the 2000-2001 budget. The Court dismissed the writ petitions as academic and noting the change in municipal status but directed the State Government to ensure future compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to look into the matter and correct any illegality regarding budget presentation in accordance with Section 101.

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak and Ors. Vs the Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

W.P. No. 1116 of 2000

¶2

(1)W.P. No. 3481 of 1998 &

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 3481 of 1998

¶5

	`District : Latur`
`1. Prakash Kamlakarrao Pathak,`
`Age : 45 years,`
`Occupation : Business,`
`R/o. Koyananagar, Latur,` `Taluka & Dist. Latur.`
`2. Nilesh s/o. Hemraj Thakkar,` `Age : 35 years,`
`Occupation : Business,`
`R/o. Latur,`
`Taluka & Dist. Latur.` `..`	`Petitioners.`
`versus`
`1. The State of Maharashtra.`
`2. The Secretary for the` `Urban Development Department,`
`State of Maharashtra,` `Mantralaya, Bombay.`
`3. The Collector, Latur,` `Taluka & District Latur.`
`4. The Municipal Council, Latur,` `through its Chief Officer.` `..` `...........` Mr. P.R. Tandale, Advocate, for	`Respondents.` the petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, Asst. Government	Pleader, for
respondent nos.01 to 03
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate,	for
respondent no.04

¶6

...........

¶7

(2)W.P. No. 3481 of 1998 &

¶8

W.P. No. 1116 of 2000

¶9

With

¶10

Writ Petition No. 1116 of 2000

¶11

District : Latur 1. Prakash Kamlakar Pathak, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Latur, Councillor, Municipal Council, Latur. 2. Nitin s/o. Vijaykumar Shete, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Business, Sitting Councillor of Municipal Council, Latur. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Latur. 2. The President, Municipal Council, Latur. 3. The Collector, Latur. 4. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. ........... Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate, for respondent nos.01 and 02. Mr. A.R. Kale, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent nos.03 and 04.

¶12

...........

¶13

W.P. No. 1116 of 2000

¶14

(3)W.P. No. 3481 of 1998 &

¶15

CORAM : V.M. KANADE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 04TH JANUARY 2017

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) :

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for
respective parties.

¶19

02.The grievance of the petitioners, who were
Councillors at the relevant time, is that the
provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra
Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial
Townships Act, 1965 [For short, "Act of 1965"], have
not been followed. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that though an undertaking has
been given by the Council to the concerned authority
that they would follow the said provision and rectify
defects, if any, in the budget, that has not been
done so far.

¶20

03.Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent - Corporation
submits that the issue has now become essentially an
academic one; firstly because the Municipal Council
has now become Municipal Corporation and secondly,
the issue raised by the petitioners was in respect of
the year 2000-2001.

¶21

(4)W.P. No. 3481 of 1998 &
W.P. No. 1116 of 2000

¶22

04.On the other hand, Mr. Natu, the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
submits that this has been happening every year and
the same illegal practice is being followed in all
other Municipal Councils.

¶23

05.In our view, there would be some substance
in the submission made by the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, at
the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the
prayer made in the petitions pertain to the year
2000-2001 and secondly, the Municipal Council has now
become a Municipal Corporation. Moreover, the
reliefs which are now orally claimed before us are in
the nature of reliefs which can be claimed in a
Public Interest Litigation. We are, therefore, not
inclined to interfere and pass any order as claimed
by the petitioners in these petitions.

¶24

06.We, however, direct the State Government to
look into the matter and correct the illegality, if
any, committed in presentation of the budget.
Municipal Councils are expected to follow the
procedure laid down under Section 101 of the Act of
1965. It cannot be forgotten that the Municipal
Councils are dealing with public money and they are
accountable. The Municipal Councils should ensure
that auditory objections are removed and deficiencies
in the budget are corrected.

¶25

(5)W.P. No. 3481 of 1998 &
W.P. No. 1116 of 2000

¶26

07.Subject to above directions, the Writ
Petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. There
shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

( Sangitrao S. Patil ) ( V.M. Kanade )
JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

...........

¶29

puranik / WP1116.00etc

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak and Ors. v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Latur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kamlakar Pathak and Ors. v. the Chief Officer Municipal Council Latur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soniya Meghjraj Harepatil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandu Malku Shedmake Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Peoples Co-Operative Bank Hingoli and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.