1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.66 OF 2010 Ganesh Anant Pawar and 2 Ors ..Petitioners. vs. Bhor Municipal Council & Ors ..Respondents. Mr L. M. Acharya with Mr R.S.Shekhawat for the Petitioners. Mr Milind More, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr P.S.Dani i/b Mr A.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 10. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 5TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 2 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the name of Respondent No.2 is permitted to be deleted from the cause title of the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Petitioner No.3 is the President of Municipal Council, Bhor, Taluka Bhor, District Pune, whereas Petitioner No.1 is it s Vice-President. A notice has been issued by Respondent No.3, Additional Collector, Pune convening a Special General Body Meeting of the Municipal Councillors on 6.1.2010 to consider two Motions of No Confidence, one against petitioner No.1 and the other against petitioner No.3. 4. Challenge to the notice dated 30-12-2009 issued by the Additional Collector,Pune convening a Special General Body Meeting on 6.1.2010, so far as the post of office of the Vice President is concerned, is that Notice does not 3 comply with the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 55-1A which deals with removal of Vice President by the Councillors by passing a resolution of No Confidence. Challenge to the same, so far as it convene a Special General Body Meeting for consideration of Motion of No Confidence against the petitioner No.3  President is concerned, is that Respondent Nos. 5 to 10, who are Councillors of Bhor, Municipal Council, have disqualified themselves under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, and that a dispute in that regard has been filed with the Collector and therefore the Additional Collector without adjudicating that dispute should not have issued notice convening a Special General Body Meeting. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Section 55-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 deals with removal of a Vice-President by Councillors by passing a resolution at a special 4 meeting. Section 55-1A reads as under:- Removal of Vice-President by Councillors:- (1) A Vice-President shall cease to be the Vice President, if the Council by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the Councillors, at a special meeting, so decides; Provided that, no such resolution shall be moved within a period of six months from the date of election of the Vice-President. (2) The requisition for such special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of Councillors and shall be sent to the President, and the President shall, within ten days of the receipt of such requisition, convene a special meeting of the Council, where the nominated Councillors shall have no right to vote. (3) If the resolution seeking removal of the Vice-President is not moved or as the case may be, rejected, in the special meeting convened for the 5 purpose under sub-section (2), no fresh resolution for such removal shall be brought during the tenure of such Vice- President. 6. Perusal of the provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 55-1A shows that a notice convening a special meeting of the Councillors to consider Motion of No Confidence against the Vice President is required to be issued by the President. The only authority competent to issue notice convening a special meeting for consideration of motion of No confidence against the Vice-President is the President. Obviously, therefore, no other authority could have issued that notice unless there is provision in the statute empowering it to issue such a notice. We have not been pointed out any provision in that regard which empowers the Additional Collector to issue impugned notice convening Special General Body Meeting of respondent No.1 to consider Motion of No Confidence against its Vice-President. Notice to that extent, 6 therefore, is illegal and liable to be set aside. So far as the question of validity of the notice in so far as it relates to convening a Special General Body meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion against Petitioner No.3 President is concerned, we find that merely because a petition has been filed seeking an order of disqualification of some of the Councillors, the power of the Collector to convene a Special General Body Meeting pursuant to a requisition submitted to him to convene a meeting for consideration of a Motion of No Confidence, if the requisition complies with all the requirements of law cannot be said to be suspended. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the Addl. Collector issuing notice convening the Special Meeting for consideration of Motion of No Confidence against Petitioner No.3- President. However, the fact remains that a petition has been filed seeking order of disqualification of Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and that petition has to be decided by the Collector, as expeditiously as 7 possible. The learned A.G.P., appearing for the Collector has stated before us after taking instructions from the Additional Collector who is present in the Court that the Additional Collector who is the Authority to decide such petition will decide the petition in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from today. The statement is accepted. In our opinion, it would be desirable if the Addl. Collector decides the petition before a meeting of the Councillors is convened for electing a new President in case Respondent No.3 is removed at the meeting which is scheduled to be held on 6th January, 2010. In case, resolution is passed in the meeting to be held on 6th January, 2010 removing petitioner No.3, validity of that resolution shall be subject to the decision of the Addl. Collector on the petition filed against Respondent Nos. 5 to 10. The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 have undertaken to co- operate with the Addl.Collector for earlier decision of the petition. 8 7. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed. Notice dated 30-12-2009 issued by the Additional Collector, Pune convening the Special General Body Meeting of the Municipal Council on 6.1.2010 is set aside in so far as it convenes the Special General Body Meeting for considering Motion of No Confidence against Petitioner No.1  Vice President only. 8. It is declared that validity of the resolution that may be passed in the meeting to be held on 6.1.2010 shall be subject to the result of the petition that is, admittedly, pending in relation to Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 before the Addl. Collector. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 9. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Personal Assistant of this Court. 10. Certified copy expedited. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J) 9 10