LexAJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR. versus MAHANAGAR SUDHAR SAMITL,AKOLA& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015]2 S.C.R.100 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR. v. MAHANAGAR SUDHAR SAMITl,AKOLA& ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2015) FEBRUARY 02, 2015 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: s.31A(2) - Formation of group/agadi by elected members - C Application for registration - There arose controversy as to whether two of the elected members projected to be part of the group were actually members of the agadi (respondent no.1) or another group (respondent no.6) - On 28.8.2012, Divisional Commissioner passed order rejecting application D for registration - Said order not challenged - Meanwhile resolution dated 29.4. 2013 passed by Municipal Corporation nominating the appellants and respondents no. 9 to 14 in the Standing Committee as members - Resolution challenged - High Court quashed resolution dated 29. 4. 2013 - Held: E Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner was not challenged and, therefore, had attained finality-As such, writ petition questioning validity of resolution dated 29.04.2013 was liable to be dismissed- Maharashtra Local F authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 - r.5. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The object of allowing elected members of the Municipal Corporation to form an aghadi as post-poll G alliance is to give proportional representation of its members to the various standing committees constituted for functioning of the Corporations. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31A of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 allows the H 100 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR 101 SUDHAR SAMIT!, AKOLA councillors to form an aghadi after the election to a A Municipal Corporation. An aghadi formed after election is required to be registered as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 31Aof1940Act. Rule 5 of Maharashtra Local authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 relates to maintaining a register of information as to councilors B and members. [Paras 9, 10, 12] [105-E-G; 110-E] 2. Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner whereby the application for registration was disposed of, showed that the application of the writ c petitioners was rejected as affidavits of respondent no. 14 and one 'MSB' were not complete. The two, who were elected as independent candidates, failed to file any document to show as to which group they belonged. Their names figured in two groups. In the said order, the o Divisional Commissioner also referred to a serious infirmity in accepting the proposal, as he found that the affidavit was sworn to and attested on 22.02.2012, whereas the stamps were purchased on 23.02.2012 which the Divisional Commissioner held to be an incomprehensible E act of the proposer. Such serious infirmities cannot be found fault with. [Para 19] [118-C-G] 3. Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was not challenged, as such the same F has attained finality. That being so, respondent no.1 cannot be said to be a registered group as required under second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 31A of the Act of 1949. The High Court erred in law by ignoring the above order of the Divisional Commissioner, and G holding that respondent no. 1 stood registered. If there was objection to registration of an aghadi, on the ground that names of certain members were falsely or wrongly shown in the list, the Commissioner had no option but to verify the same. And, in such cases, unless the H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A verification is done, an aghadi cannot be said to have got registered, by merely submitting an application within one month of election to Municipal Corporation. Had the writ petitioners challenged order dated 28.08.2012 with the Resolution dated 29.04.2013, the situation would B have been different. But order of Divisional Commissioner rejecting application for registration has attained finality, and same cannot be ignored. As such, writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 questioning validity of resolution dated 29.04.2013 was liable to be C dismissed. [Para 20] [119-B-F] D Jeevan Chandrabhan ldnani and Anr. vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkar Bhawan and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 794: 2012 (3) SCR 32- relied on. Case Law Reference 2012 (3) SCR 32 relied on. Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 1388of2015 [From the Judgment and Or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.