1 wp 5465.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2010 Prakash Kamlakar Pathak .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner assails the order passed by the Collector and the respondent No. 2/ Additional Divisional Commissioner, wherein the petitioner's grievance made U/Sec. 101 and 308 respectively of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 is rejected. 2. Shri Irpatgire, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have to follow the provisions of Sec. 2 wp 5465.10 101 while preparing, sanctioning and adopting the budget in respect of the Budget for the year 2009-2010. The respondents have flagrantly violated the provisions of Sec. 101. There was no sanction and without the said sanction, the said budget was being adopted and the proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 101 was not at all adhered. 3. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. 4. No doubt, the provisions of the statute more particularly regarding the budgetary provisions have to strictly adhered. Proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 101 lays down that when council is indebted to Government, the budget of the council shall be adopted only with the previous sanction of the Collector who shall accord such sanction. In the present case, in the affidavit it is admitted that the Municipal Council is indebted with the Government, in such circumstances, the proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 101 has to be followed. It is incorrect on the part of respondent No. 3 to contend on affidavit that Municipal Council can adopt the budget before 28th February, without previous sanction of the District Collector. The same would not be in consonance with the provisions of law. Even reading subsequent 3 wp 5465.10 proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 101, it is evident that even if council fails to adopt the budget before 28th February, the President has to send for its approval. The provisions of Sub Section 4 of Section 101 and the proviso thereto will have to be read harmoniously. The present matter, pertains to budget of the year 2009-2010. Same is academic. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through Shri Hon, the learned counsel has assured this Court that, they would adhere to the provisions of Sec. 101 while preparing and adopting the budget in future. If the respondents fail to adhere the said provisions, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11