1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No.4664/2008 Mahadeo s/o Bhaiyalal Bundele vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya Extension Mumbai 32 and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.C.Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respondents 1 and 3. Shri A.M.Gordey, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.H.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 1.12.2008 Heard Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is an elected corporator of the respondent no. 2 Corporation in the election held on 2.2.2007 and he represents the ward no. 43. He was an official candidate of Bharip Bahujan Maha Sangh a recognized political party for the said election. He is aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ( the respondent no.3) whereby he directed to record the name of Shri Sunil Tukaram Meshram another corporator of the said political party in the official record as a party leader in the respondent corporation under Rule 3(4) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987. 2` 2. As per the petitioner, when the last corporation elections were held on 2.2.2007 in all ten corporators got elected from his party and the respondent no. 4 was one of them. In the meeting held in March 2007 of his party corporators, he was elected as the party leader and accordingly his name was registered as such in the record of the Municipal Corporation as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The District President of Bharip Bahujan Maha Sangh by his communication dated 3.3.2008 addressed to the Mayor of the Corporation about the appointment of the respondent no. 4 as the party leader and based on that name of the respondent no.4 was recorded as such by the impugned order. The petitioner further states that the change as allegedly held to have been taken place in the meeting held on 28.2.2008 is illegal and in fact no such meeting was held and even if it was held the said meeting was illegally scheduled and conducted. He further claims that the intimation regarding the party change was not communicated within a period of 30 days and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal on that ground also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and solely on that ground it is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following two decisions; 3` i) S.L.Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & others. (AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 136). ii) Liberty Oil Mills & others vs. Union of India and others. (AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 1271) 3. In the case of S.L. Kapoor (supara), a three Judges Bench stated, inter alia, as under: “10.--------------------------------------- It is not always a necessary inference that if opportunity is expressly provided in one provision and not so provided in another, opportunity is to be considered as excluded from that other provision. It may be a weighty consideration to be taken into account but the weightier consideration is whether the administrative action entails civil consequences.” 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has placed before us the record from the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and we have noted that the letter dated 3.3.2008 addressed by the District President of Bharip Bahujan MahaSangh to the Mayor of the respondent no.2 Corporation has been accompanied with all the documents required to be submitted along with it as per the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 2007 (as amended). The meeting requisition was circulated on 23.2.2008 and the meeting 4` of the ten corporators was scheduled on 28.2.2008. The proceedings of the said meeting held on 28.2.2008 indicate that out of the ten corporators eight were present and the resolution to effect the change in the party leader has been supported by eight out of the ten corporators. The same was intimated to the Office of the Divisional Commissioner on or before 11.3.2008 and, therefore, it can not be accepted that the resolution regarding the change in the name of the party leader was not intimated within 30 days. 4A. Having regards to the Rules of 1987 and amended Rules of 2007 (as amended) we have no doubt that the action of recording the name of the party leader or the name of the new party leader is an administrative act by the Divisional Commissioner or under his orders. With the help of Mr. Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner we have gone through the Rules as amended and we are satisfied that there is no civil rights vested with the party leader except that the Municipal Commissioner is required to consult the party leader and the opinion expressed in such consultation is not binding on the said authority. It is well settled that the extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, 5` upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. (A.K.Kraipak vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 150. 5. On the obtaining facts of this case and more particularly the Scheme of Rules 1987 as amended in the year 2007 as well as the record produced before us, we have no doubt in our mind that while directing the change in the Corporation in the official record the Divisional Commissioner was not required to hear the applicant and before passing the impugned order. The election of a party leader and any dispute therein is purely a matter between the party corporators and the scheme and the rules indicates that change in the party leader can be effected at any time by the party. There is no fixed minimum tenure of any party leader and, therefore, such a change can not 6` be a matter of judicial review by the courts. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned action of recording the name of the respondent no.4 as the party leader of Bharip Bahujan Maha Sangh in place of the petitioner does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. JUDGE JUDGE patle