1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 of 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1353 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3273 of 2010 Sanjay Bharat Sable ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra ....Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Gangal with Ashok T. Gade with Vindu Pandey, advocate for respondents 2-4. Mrs. J.S. Pawar-Addl. GP for respondents 1 & 5. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 15th April, 2010 has been challenged on the ground that the same is without authority of law. The effect of the said order is to stay the Resolution No. 1 passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation dated 12th April, 2010 in exercise of powers under Section 451(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The said 2 Resolution in turn was to elect the Chairman of the Standing Committee. The primary question that needs to be addressed is whether the State Government has authority to interdict the Resolution which purports to elect the Chairman of the Standing Committee, which is in the nature of election of the Chairman thereof. The legal position is no more res integra. In the case of Ashraf Yunus Motiwala & anr. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2001 (1) Bom.C.R. page-6, the Court has negatived the stand of the State Government in this behalf. It is observed thus:- “Section 451 of the Municipal Corporation Act sets out powers of the State Government to suspend or rescind any resolution or order etc. of the Corporation or other authority in certain cases. This section does not specify the State Government’s power to set aside the elections to any of the committee of the Corporation and the word “resolutions or order of the Corporation or any other authority” cannot be equated with the election proceedings and, therefore, under the said section the State Government does not have the powers to deal with the challenge against the election proceedings to any of the committees of the Corporation.” 2. Counsel appearing for the Respondents in all fairness states that the decision pressed into service by the Petitioner has neither been overruled nor been distinguished or otherwise at a later point of time till date. 3. In view of the above, the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 15th April, 2010 Exhibit A cannot be sustained and the same will have to be quashed 3 and set aside. In the circumstances, this Petition succeeds in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. We make it clear that this decision is not an expression of opinion either way on the question whether the election of the Petitioner as Chairman of the Standing Committee is legal or proper. As and when that challenge is brought before the appropriate forum, it will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Counsel for the Corporation submits that nothing survives for consideration in the accompanying Civil Application bearing Civil Application No. 1353/2010 - as in view of the pronouncement of this order, the Standing Committee can function and conduct meetings under the Chairmanship of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3273/2010. 6. Accordingly, writ Petition and the accompanying Application is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)