(1) ra169-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3683 OF 2011 Dr. Khan Zafar Ahmed and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.N. Pagare, advocate for the respondent No. 3. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. A.M. Karad, advocate for the respondent No. 4. Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for the respondent No. 6. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate for the writ petitioner. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. This Review Petition has been filed by the persons who claim to be the councillors of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. They were not parties to the writ petition. However, it is contended on their behalf by the learned counsel appearing for them that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of "Bhanumati v. State of U.P. (2) ra169-11 reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6470 has not been noticed by us while delivering the judgement in the writ petition. He points out several paragraphs of this judgement of the Supreme Court in support of his submission that although a term of office is not stipulated for the Leader of the Aghadi in either the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 nor the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Disqualification of Members) Act, 1986, democratic principles require that once the Body of Persons who have elected the Leader ceases to have confidence in him, he has no right to continue in office. 2. In the case of "Bhanumati v. State of U.P." (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution due to which the Panchayat became an "Institution of Self-Governance". The Court observed that what was in a nebulous state as one of the Directive Principles under Article 40 of the Constitution metamorphosed into a distinct part of Constitution due to the 73rd Constitutional Amendment providing for a detailed provision for functioning of a Panchayat. In this background, the Court considered the submissions as follows : (3) ra169-11 "55. In the background of these provisions, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the provision of no- confidence, being not in Part IX of the Constitution is contrary to the Constitutional scheme of things and would run contrary to the avowed purpose of Constitutional amendment which is meant to lend stability and dignity to Panchayati Institutions. It was further argued that reducing the period from `two years' to `one year' before a no-confidence motion can be brought further unsettles the running of the Panchayat. It was further urged that under the impugned amendment that such a no- confidence motion can be carried on the basis of a simple majority instead of two thirds majority dilutes the concept of stability." A no-confidence motion was moved against the Chairperson of the Panchayat and it was argued on his behalf that since the Constitution did not provide for a no-confidence motion in respect of the office of the Chairperson, he could not be removed before (4) ra169-11 his term of office was completed. The Court observed that since the Institution like a Panchayat or any other Public Body run on democratic principles, persons heading the Public Bodies can continue, provided they enjoy the confidence of persons who comprise such bodies. The Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 had a provision for removal of the Chairperson on the basis of a no-confidence motion. The Court was of the view that the enactment was valid and, therefore, the Chairperson could be removed by a no-confidence motion before completion of the term of office although such a provision did not exist in the Constitution of India. 3. In our opinion, this judgement has no application to the facts involved in the present case as we have already concluded in our judgement in the writ petition that neither the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 nor the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Disqualification of Members) Act, 1986 stipulate any term of office for the Leader of the Aghadi. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. (5) ra169-11 4. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, at their request. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/ra169-11