1 WP6861/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6861 OF 2010 Shri Sunil B. Gaikwad ...Petitioner v/s Malegaon Municipal Corporation and others ...Respondents Mr A.V. Anturkar i/b Mr S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr S.S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr M.M. Vashi for Respondent No.4. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 5TH JULY 2011. 2 WP6861/10 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner challenges the decision of the Mayor of Malegaon Municipal Corporation contained in the minutes of the meeting of Malegaon Municipal Corporation dated 31st July 2010 in so far as he refused to consult the petitioner in the process of nominating a member of the Standing Committee. The relevant facts are that 9 elected Corporators of Malegaon Municipal Corporation elected petitioner as their leader in 2007. A declaration to that effect as required by the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules 1987 was submitted to the Commissioner. Then in the month of June 2010, 6 out of 9 Corporators decided to remove the petitioner from the post of their leader and they decided to appoint respondent No.4 in his place. Accordingly, declarations were made before the Commissioner. The Mayor, noting all these facts, has held that because of these developments taking place on 21st June 2010 and in view of the 3 WP6861/10 declaration being made before the Commissioner as required by the Rules, the petitioner cannot be recognised as leader of 9 members and that the respondent No.4 will have to be treated as leader. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner, relying on the provisions of rule 3(4) of the Rules submits that if there is any change in leadership, the change has to be communicated by the leader and as in this case the petitioner who was the leader, has not communicated the change to the Commissioner, the change does not take effect. He also submits that the Mayor does not have power to decide who is the leader of the Corporation Party. In our opinion, both the submissions are without any substance. Perusal of sub-rule (4) of rule 3 of the Rules shows that the change taking place in the composition of the Corporation party, is to be submitted to the Commissioner after there is change in the form of some of the Corporators going out of the party, the leader has to communicate that change, but if there is a change in the office of the leader itself, it is obvious that that change 4 WP6861/10 will have to be communicated by others. The submission by the learned counsel that the change can be communicated only by the leader, in our opinion, has no substance. So far as the second submission is concerned, perusal of the minutes of the meeting recorded by the Mayor shows that he has merely narrated the facts and on finding that the declaration has been made by the respondent No.4 before the Commissioner, after the event that took place on 21st June 2010, he decided to consult the respondent No.4. In our opinion, no interference at the hands of this Court is called for. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )