(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2011 Hemant s/o. Murlidhar Adalkar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Ex-President, Municipal Council, Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. Ganeshsingh Prakashia Raghunwahsi, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Social Worker, Ganpati Galli, near Ghati Tower, Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. (2) Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.V. Chandole, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 1522 OF 2011 Vinod s/o. Haribhau Borade, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Vice President, Municipal Council, Sailu, R/o. Sailu, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondent. ........................ Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent. ....................... (3) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties in both petitions. 2. Challenge in Writ Petition No. 376/2011 is to the show cause notice issued under Section 55B of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (For short, "1965 Act"), alleging that petitioner therein was President of the Municipal Council during 1988 to 1996 and during that period, prima facie it was revealed that he had indulged in some misconduct. 3. Challenge in Writ Petition No. 1522/2011 is to the show cause notice dated 15-9-2010 issued under Sections 55A and 55B of 1965 Act, alleging that the petitioner therein was President of the Municipal Council from 17-12-2001 to 16-6-2009 and indulged in some malpractices. 4. Adv. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, for petitioner in W.P. No. 376/2011, contends that the petitioner Hemant is at present not (4) even a Councillor and he was occupying the post of President between 1988 to 1995. For alleged misconduct during that period, action was already taken against him and he was also disqualified under Section 55B of 1965 Act, and he has suffered that disqualification. The second show cause notice, therefore, according to him, that too, to a person who is nobody, is contrary to law and without jurisdiction. He has contended that the complaint by respondent no.2 is only against another petitioner Vinod and there is absolutely no grievance against petitioner Hemant. 5. Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi, for petitioner in W.P. No. 1522/2011, reiterates same stand. However, he points out that petitioner Vinod is at present Vice-President of the Municipal Council. He contends that the tenure in relation to which misconduct is alleged, is already over and hence no action therefore is possible. He relies upon judgment of Division Bench of this court reported at 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 1093, in the case of Narayan Atmaram Borase Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. 6. Learned AGP Mrs. V.A. Shinde, for the respondent / State, as also, Adv. Mr. S.V. Chandole, for respondent no.2 in W.P. No. 376/2011, have opposed the petitions. They rely upon (5) express language of Section 55B of 1965 Act to support the show cause notice. According to them, when jurisdiction exists, petitioners have to submit their reply and raise appropriate defences and this court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. 7. Perusal of judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Narayan Atmaram Borase Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), reveals that it was in relation to the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and more particularly on Section 39(1) and (1A) thereof. The Division Bench has found that the said Section does not provide for disqualification spreading beyond the term of Sarpanch found guilty of misconduct. Perusal of provisions of Section 55B of 1965 Act does not support such conclusion. There, the action is also contemplated against a person who was earlier a President or Vice-President. The punishment contemplated therein is of disqualification for further period of six years. 8. In view of this, it is apparent that merely because tenure of petitioner Hemant or Vinod is over or then at present petitioner Hemant is nobody, show cause notice cannot be faulted with. Whether for the same misconduct, action has already been taken against petitioner Hemant is a disputed question and the same can be raised before competent authority (6) by filing reply. In so far as the contention of Adv. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, that the complaint by respondent no.2 is only against another petitioner Vinod and not against petitioner Hemant, is concerned, the complaint is not the requirement of initiation of action under Section 55B of 1965 Act and Government can independently after noticing material proceed thereunder. 9. Therefore, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 10. With liberty to the petitioners to file their reply before competent authority in accordance with law, present petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp376etc