1 CAW NO.1736.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1736 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2635 OF 2008 Chief Officer, Chiplun Nagarparishad, Chiplun. ... Applicant v/s Sanjay Shamrao Mane ... Respondent Mr.Harshad V. Bhadbhade for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Punde for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed by the applicant, the Chief Officer, Chiplun Nagarparishad, Chiplun, contending that the withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.2635 of 2008 on 24.9.2009 was erroneous. It is contended that the President of the Nagarparishad who authorized the learned advocate for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, had no 2 CAW NO.1736.10 authority to do so. The applicant has contended that the Collector, Ratnagiri, has stayed the resolution passed by the Nagarparishad permitting withdrawal of the writ petition. 2. It appears that a resolution was passed on 25.8.2009 by the general body of the Nagarparishad permitting withdrawal of the writ petition. This fact was communicated to the petitioner’s lawyer by a letter dated 19.9.2009. Accordingly, the learned advocate for the petitioner had sought liberty to withdraw the petition from this Court. By an order dated 24.9.2009, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as such. It appears that the Collector has stayed the aforesaid resolution by an order dated 2.3.2010. It is in these circumstances that the restoration of the petition is being sought by the present civil application. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that under Section 58(1)(d) of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, the President of a Council or Nagar Panchayat has the power to exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of the Chief Officer of the Council in matters of executive administration and in matters concerning the 3 CAW NO.1736.10 accounts and records of the Council. It is submitted that the President, in exercise of these powers conferred under Section 58, has chosen to request the learned advocate for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. He further submits that the President has acted on a resolution passed by the General Body of the Nagarparishad and, therefore, there is no need to restore the petition. 4. The learned advocate for the respondent further submits that under Section 308 although the Collector has exercised his powers, the direction to stay the resolution for withdrawal of the petition was passed much after the petition was withdrawn and, therefore, the stay to that resolution by the Collector in respect of withdrawal of the petition cannot affect the order passed by this Court. Nor can the petition be restored to the file of this Court only because the resolution is stayed. 5. In my opinion, the civil application is misconceived. 6. Instructions were obtained from the President of the Municipal Council who was acting on a resolution passed by the General Secretary of the Municipal Council. The act of the withdrawal of the petition was complete on 24.9.2009. 4 CAW NO.1736.10 Therefore, merely because the Collector had stayed the resolution by his order dated 2.3.2010 it would not lead to the inference that the writ petition should be restored. While instructing the learned advocate for the petitioner, the President had full powers to authorize him, on the basis of the resolution passed, to withdraw the writ petition. 3. The civil application stands dismissed. .....