Dismissed

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Jun 2019WP/4373/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a corporator and leader of opposition, challenged the constitution of ward committees by the Latur City Municipal Corporation, alleging falsification of minutes and non-holding of a specific meeting. The court rejected claims of malafide by the Commissioner, noting the political nature of the dispute and the lack of apparent foul play, thereby dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 4373.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4373 OF 2018

¶4

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Shri P. P. More, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate i/by Shri S. P. Urgunde and Shri B. B. Dahiphale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶10

CLOSED FOR ORDERS ON : 30.04.2019 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 07.06.2019

¶11

FINAL ORDER (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-

¶12

. The petitioner has filed present petition for the following reliefs :

¶13

B.Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the
resolution passed in the meeting dated
29.11.2017 by the committee as well as
consequential proceeding and consequently the
earlier meeting dated 04.09.2017 required to be
finalized.

¶14

2 wp 4373.18

¶15

C.Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the
nature of mandamus to the respondents, kindly
the respondent No. 4 to act upon the meeting
dated 04.09.2017 and forward the proposal before
the respondent No. 2 for election of chairman of
ward committees.

¶16

D.Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the
nature of mandamus to the respondents to direct
the respondent No. 2 to not to take any action
on the letter dated 15.03.2018 forwarded by the
respondent No. 4 for election of chairman of
ward committees.

¶17

Mr, Hon, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the elected Corporator of Latur City Municipal Corporation and also the leader of opposition. The learned senior counsel submits that, the petitioner is Member of the committee constituted for formation of Ward Committees. On 20^th July, 2017, meeting was scheduled of the General Body and twelve subjects were on the agenda. The subject No. 6 is in respect of formation of ward committees. It was necessary to discuss each subject in the house, however, without any discussion and hurriedly a resolution was passed by saying that the subject No. 1 will be implemented by the Commissioner in accordance with law and Subject Nos. 2 to 12 are passed by majority and are confirmed in the said meeting. There was no discussion in the General Body meeting dated 20^th July, 2017. No discussion had taken place in respect of

¶18

3 wp 4373.18

¶19

formation of ward committees. As per resolution No. 10 in the general body meeting dated 20^th July, 2017, it is resolved that as per Sec. 29-A(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (for short “Said Act”) for fixation of number of ward committees and fixation of territorial area of electoral wards to constitute a committee consisting of Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Leader of House, Leader of Opposition, Chairman of Standing Committee and Commissioner of Latur City Municipal Corporation.

¶20

The learned senior counsel further submits that, the Committee for constitution of ward committees was to be considered in the meeting on 04.09.2017. In the meeting dated 04.09.2017, it is resolved that total four wards are required for smooth functioning of the corporation. The Committees are constituted as follows :

¶21

Sr. No.	Ward Committee	Electoral Ward No.
01.	Ward Committee - A	1, 9, 10, 11
02.	Ward Committee - B	7, 2, 3, 4, 8
03.	Ward Committee - C	5, 6, 18, 16, 17
04.	Ward Committee - D	15, 14, 13, 12

¶22

The learned senior counsel further submits that, the petitioner was present in the meeting dated 04.09.2017 and unanimously the decision was taken and the ward committees were fixed. The Commissioner of the Latur City Municipal Corporation forwarded the proposal on 15.03.2018 to the

¶23

4 wp 4373.18

¶24

Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad. It is mentioned in the said proposal that one more meeting dated 29.11.2017 is held and a separate chart with regard to the constitution of ward committees is given. The same is different chart than the one decided and confirmed in the meeting dated 04.09.2017. No such meeting dated 29.11.2017 was held for finalization of ward committees. In the extract of presentee sheet, it is reflected that in the meeting dated 29.11.2017 present petitioner and Mr. Govindpurkar have opposed the resolution. No such meeting was held on 29.11.2017 and the records are manipulated. The proposal forwarded under letter dated 15.03.2018 is contrary to record. The proposal for election of Chairman of ward committees is vitiated. The ward committee is not constituted in the General Body meeting and for that separate committee is established consisting six members. A meeting is conducted on 04.09.2017 and the ward committees are formed. The meeting shown to have been conducted on 29.11.2017 is not conducted.

¶25

The learned senior advocate further submits that, if the letter dated 31.05.2018 filed by the respondent No. 4 along with the affidavit in reply is perused, it reflects that the document filed by the petitioner at Exhibit – E dated 15.03.2018 is rewritten and fabricated by the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 is acting as per the whims and desire of opposition party and not in the interest of the Corporation. The respondent No. 4 with malafide intention prepared the minutes of meeting dated

¶26

5 wp 4373.18

¶27

29.11.2017 by which the earlier resolution dated 04.09.2017 is disturbed behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner has obtained certified copies of attendance sheet of the alleged meeting dated 29.11.2017. Said copies itself show that the respondent No. 4 with malafide intention has prepared forged record of meeting dated 29.11.2017. The meeting dated 29.11.2017 is for formation of area of ward committees and not for constitution of ward committees. The impugned resolution and the proposal be set aside.

¶28

Mr. Jamalpurkar Patil, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 4 submits that, the record has been produced before the Court about various resolutions. The affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of the respondent No. 4 and has explained about the meeting held on 20.07.2017, 04.09.2017 and 29.11.2017. In the meeting dated 04.09.2017 a decision has been taken on subject No. 6 by majority of votes. It was resolved that total four number of ward committees are required for smooth functioning of the corporation and as such A, B, C and D ward committees were constituted. The documents filed by the petitioner at Exhibit – D dated 04.09.2017 are fabricated documents. The petitioner denied to sign the attendance register of the meeting dated 04.09.2017 and thereafter all members after discussion unanimously decided and fixed the ward committees. After the decision has been taken, the proposal has been forwarded by the Commissioner on 31.05.2018 to the Divisional

¶29

6 wp 4373.18

¶30

Commissioner and under order dated 07.06.2018, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad had directed to hold the election of Chairperson of the Ward Committee on 14.06.2018. The proposal though was signed on 15.03.2018 was forwarded on 31.05.2018. The due procedure of law has been followed while constituting ward committees as required U/Sec. 29-A of the said Act.

¶31

We have considered submissions canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and have also gone through the record produced.

¶32

Under our order dated 12.02.2019, considering the rival documents filed on record, we had directed the Commissioner of Latur City Municipal Corporation to personally file an affidavit after going through the record and to produce the record of the meeting dated 20.07.2017, 04.09.2017 and 29.11.2017.

¶33

The ward committees are required to be constituted and formed as per Sec. 29-A(1) of the said Act. The Chairman is to be elected as per Sec. 29-A(4) of the said Act.

¶34

The resolution produced on record dated 20^th July, 2017 with regard to item No. 6 states that for considering ward areas the committee is constituted. The members of the Committee

¶35

7 wp 4373.18

¶36

were Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairman of the Standing Committee, the Leader of house, the Leader of opposition and the Commissioner. The text also says that four ward committees are to be constituted and to determine the numbers and the area, the said committee is constituted. In the resolution dated 04.09.2017 produced by the respondent No. 4, the decision has been taken that the Committee approves the constitution of four ward committees. In the resolution placed on record of the meeting dated 04.09.2017, the petitioner and one Mr. Govindpurkar does not seem to have signed. Thereafter, as per the record placed by the respondent No. 4, the meeting dated 29.11.2017 was held and four ward committees were constituted which are as under :

¶37

ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk] ykrwj lferh lHkk fnukad 29-11-2017

¶38

loZlk/kj.k lHkk fnukad 20-07-2017 fo”k; dza 06 lanHkkZr lferhus ?ksrysyk fu.kZ;

¶39

fo”k; dza 06 & ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydsph izHkkx lferh {ks=s fu'phr dj.ks ckcr-

¶40

lferhpk fu.kZ; % & iz'kklukus lferhP;k lHksr fnysY;k ekfgrhuqlkj ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydsps izHkkx lferh {ks=s [kkyhy izek.ks fu'phr dj.;kl ekU;rk ns.;kr vkyh- lferhP;k ;k fu.kZ;kl lUek- fojks/kh i{kusrk vWM lqG fnid xaxk/kj o lUek- LFkk;h lferh lHkkirh Jh v'kksd olarjko xksfoaniwdj ;kauh fojks/kh n'kZoyk-

¶41

*v- dza*		i	*zHkkx dza-*
1	*{ks= ,*	*2] 3] 4] 5]*	7
2	*{ks= ch*	*1] 6] 8] 9]*	10
3	*{ks= lh*	*11] 12] 13]*	14

¶42

8 wp 4373.18

¶43

4 *{ks=*	Mh *15] 16] 17] 18*
*lgh* *Jh iokj lqjs'k fuo`Rrh* *egkikSj*	*lgh* *lgh* *Jh dkGs nsfonkl jkefyax vWM 'kSys'k izdk'k xkstexaqMs* *miegkikSj* *lHkkx`gusrk*
*ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk*	*ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk*
*vWM lqG fnid xaxk/kj* *fojks/kh i{kusrk* *ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk*	*lgh* *Jh v'kksd olarjko xkfoaniwjdj* *vP;qr gkaxs* *LFkk;h lferh lHkkirh* *vk;qDr* *ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk ykrwj 'kgj egkuxjikfydk*

¶44

In the said resolution also it appears that the petitioner and one Mr. Govindpurkar have not signed. In the attendance sheet it is stated that the petitioner and Mr. Govindpurkar are present, however, they refused to sign. The members are also detailed in the resolution dated 29.11.2017 and the wards.

¶45

In the writ jurisdiction, it will not be possible for us to go into investigation and the details about the resolution passed. Considering the discrepancy on record, we had asked the respondent No. 4, a responsible officer to place the record and also file affidavit. The respondent No. 4 pursuant to our direction had filed affidavit confirming that a meeting dated 04.09.2017 was held and thereafter a meeting dated 29.11.2017 was also held and that the procedure U/Sec. 29-A of the said Act was adhered too. The respondent No. 4 has disputed the document dated 04.09.2017 annexed by the petitioner. It is stated on affidavit by the respondent No. 4 that the meeting dated 04.09.2017 is only for constitution of number of ward

¶46

9 wp 4373.18

¶47

committees and the committee decided and fixed the number of ward committees. The meeting dated 29.11.2017 was held and same is in respect of subject No. 6 of General Body meeting dated 20^th July, 2017 and the petitioner was present in the said meeting dated 29.11.2017, but refused to sign the attendance sheet.

¶48

The matter has politically over tone. This Court would be slow to entertain a dispute in such matters. Moreover, there is no reason to doubt the record produced by the respondent No. 4/Commissioner who is responsible officer. No malafides are alleged against the Commissioner about having a personal interest. He is an independent person and not having allegiance with any political party. The corporaters owe allegiances to particular political party and not the Commissioner. If the resolution is passed by majority and same is placed on record by the Municipal Commissioner, unless there is apparent and exfacie ground to suggest foul play, this Court would not interfere in such matter. The procedure as is required U/Sec. 29-A of the said Act, it appears, is adhered too.

¶49

In the light of the above, it will not be possible to accept the contention of the petitioner. Moreover, election of Chairman is stayed for more than a year.

¶50

10 wp 4373.18

¶51

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶52

The original record is returned back to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also accepts the same.

¶53

[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶54

bsb/June 19

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Gangadharrao Sul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Subhash Gopinath Chavan

Nilkanth Laxmanrao Gadade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jaysingrao Manjabapu Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Ajinkya Sharad Govekar

Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Bahu Sevabhavi Sanstha Soyegaon Dist Aurangabad Thru President M B Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Adarsha Education Society Ambhai through Its Vice President Shaikh Mohammad Saleem Aashaq Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others