1 wp 458-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2011 Shri Govind Vithal Lokhande & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Ms.Leena Patil i/b. Mr.M.S. Karnik for the Petitioners. Ms.M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State. Mr.Irfan Shaikh i/b. Mr.S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. MAY 3, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to withdraw the Notification dated 15th July, 2010 insofar as it declares that the newly elected Councillors can function for the remainder period only. 2 wp 458-2011 3 The last general elections of the Sinnar Municipal Council were held in 2006. This Court is informed that on 18th May, 2010, for some reason, the Council was dissolved and fresh elections were conducted on 31st August, 2010 for the remainder period i.e. till October, 2011. When the elections in August were held, they were admittedly conducted for the remainder period and at that stage neither the petitioners nor any other person interested made any grievance. 4 We are informed that PIL was filed in this Court being PIL No.143/2010 and it was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2010. In the PIL, the challenge was to the very same Notification/instructions dated 15th July, 2010, which is impugned in the present writ petition, and it was on the similar grounds, as raised in the present petition. 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits 3 wp 458-2011 that after dissolution of the Council, four new wards were constituted and therefore, instead of holding the election for remainder period, the respondents ought to have conducted fresh election for a period of five years. 6 The Division Bench presided over by the Hon ble the Chief Justice, in the PIL, considered the challenge to the very same notification, impugned in this petition, and dismissed the petition. Merely because four new wards were created after dissolution of the Council cannot be a ground for allowing the Councillors, to continue for a period of five years when they were elected for the remainder period only. We find no merit in the writ petition. 7 Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)