Sunita W/O Ramdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC21 Jan 2021WP/409/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it was not necessary to entertain the merits of a matter concerning the removal of an elected President from a Municipal Council, as the petition challenged a show cause notice which does not deprive of office. The Court directed the Respondent Authority to first determine the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner before proceeding further.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunita W/O Ramdas Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2101wp409.21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.409 OF 2021

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another

¶6

Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶7

Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 21 JANUARY 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Petitioner, who is a directly elected President of Municipal Council, Deulgaon Raja, has received a show cause notice on 7 Decemeber 2020 from the State Government as to why she should not be removed from the post. This notice is subject matter of challenge before us.

¶11

Since it is only a show cause notice and further steps, if any, would be taken after giving opportunity to the Petitioner,

¶12

2 2101wp409.21

¶13

it is not necessary for us to entertain the defences of the Petitioner on merits of the allegations. However, Shri Khajanchi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that there is no jurisdiction in the respondent Authority to issue such notice under Sections 51-1A and 55-A and B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner being directly elected, cannot be removed taking recourse to these provisions.

¶14

The Petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice and taken this as a preliminary objection to the proceedings. In view of this position, it is not necessary for us to issue further directions except to observe that the Respondent Authority, who has issued the show cause notice, will first determine the preliminary objection raised by the Pettioner and thereafter further proceedings, if any, would ensue. The decision on the preliminary objection be supplied to the Petitioner.

¶15

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶17

khj

¶18

Kamal Digitally signedby Kamal Jeswani Date: 2021.01.25 12:26:09 +0530 Jeswani

Sunita W/O Ramdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunita W/O Ramdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Dhanvi Sharad More Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of Social Justice and Empowerment, Mumbai and Others

Mamta W/O Ratnakar Gaikwad (Asha D/O Champat Dhok) Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member-Sec. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Others

Dr. Satish P. Punse Vs Shri. Shivaji Education Sanstha Thr. President and Others

M/S. Sai Agrotech F.M.D. (Farm Machinery Division) Thr. Proprietor Devananad R. Dudhe Vs the Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare(Goi) and Others

Shri Leeladhan Raju Godhare. Vs Secretary Agricultural Produce and Another.

Sidhheshwar S/O Wamanrao Ganorkar Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Amrvati