1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5658 OF 2010 Chandrakant s/o Bhikanrao Patil ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 29th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for declaring the notice dated 24.6.2010, issued by the respondent No.3 – Collector, Jalgaon, convening the meeting on 1/7/2010 for considering the notice of no confidence against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the mandatory proviso to Section 55-1 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the 2 respondent No.3 from convening the meeting on 1/7/2010. 2. It appears that, on 20.11.2006, a last general elections to the respondent No.2 Parola Municipal Council were held for 20 Wards and accordingly 6 candidates came to be elected from Nationalist Congress Party and 11 candidates came to be elected from Shiv Sena Party. 2 candidates were elected from Bhartiya Janata Party and 1 independent candidate was elected as Councillor of respondent No.2. On 26/12/2006, meeting for electing the President and the Vice President of the respondent No.2 Council for the first term of 2 ½ years was held and one Shri Govind Shirole came to be elected as President and one Smt. Kalpana Patil was elected as Vice President. The respondent No.3 Collector convened the meeting for holding the elections of President and Vice President of respondent No.2 Council on 20/6/2009 since the term of the earlier Councillors was coming to an end and the second term of 2 ½ years was about to commence. The petitioner, who contested the election, was declared as elected unopposed as the President of the respondent No.2 Council and on 26/6/2009 the petitioner took the charge as the President for the remaining term of 2 ½ years. According to the petitioner, on 23/6/2010, the respondent Nos.4 to 18 submitted a requisition in the office of respondent No.3 Collector, for moving a no confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that on 1/7/2010 3 the meeting is scheduled to be held. 3. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the proviso to Section 55. Section 55-1 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 reads as under : 55. Removal of President by Councillors:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, after the coming into force of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation and Municipal Councils, (Amendment) and Temporary provisions for Conduct of Elections of Municipal Corporations Act, 2001, a President shall cease to be the President if the Councillors by a resolution passed at a special meeting by majority not less than three fourths of the total number of Councillors so decides. Provided that no such resolution shall be moved within a period of one year from the date of election of the President.” 4. Reliance is placed particularly upon the proviso which mandates that no such resolution shall be moved within a period of one year from the date of election of the President. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had assumed charge as the President on 26/6/2009 and one year was completed on 26/6/2010, but prior to that, the requisition for convening the special 4 meeting came to be made by some of the Councillors. It is stated that, such a meeting, if convened, would be contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, a writ of prohibition is also sought for. 5. According to us, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are sans merit. The resolution would be deemed to have been moved only when the resolution falls for consideration of the Councillors in the meeting specially convened for that purpose. It is at that point of time that the resolution would be moved for consideration since the meeting is scheduled to be held on 1/7/2010 and also the fact that the period of one year has already come to an end on 26/6/2010, we do not notice any illegality in convening the meeting scheduled to be held on 1/7/2010. Apart from that, the petitioner has adequate remedy in law for challenging the decision, if adverse to the petitioner. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, we see no merit in the petition and the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) fmp/wp5658.10