1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7855 OF 2008 Shafique Ahmed Sadat Khan. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents. --- Smt.Neeta Karnik, for Petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP for Respondent no.1. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.S.V.Dhakephalkar, for Respondent no.2. Mr.S.K.Chaturvedi i/b. M/s.Chaturvedi & Associates, for Respondent nos.3 to 5. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 3rd November,2009 P.C.:- 1. In the year 2007, the Corporation passed a Resolution for constituting ward committee. That 2 resolution was a subject matter of challenge before this Court. Implementation of that Resolution was stayed. But it appears that the petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the Corporation has passed a fresh resolution constituting ward committee. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation does not have power to cancel the earlier Resolution by passing a Resolution which goes contrary to the earlier Resolution. The case of the petitioner is that though the earlier petition was withdrawn simplicitor, the new Resolution was passed by misrepresenting the Councilor regarding the effect of the Court s order. In our opinion, once it is found that the Corporation had power to pass second Resolution, the question whether the second Resolution is contrary to the first resolution cannot be gone into. In our opinion, this is an action of a Corporate body working according to the democratic system and the decision to constitute a ward committee is essentially a political decision and therefore, interference of the Court in such a decision will have to be restricted only where patent illegality is 3 pointed out. We do not see any patent illegality. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)