1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 of 2010 Mr. Sanjay Bharat Sable ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.V.Anturkar with Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Gokhale,AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. V.A.Gangal with Vindu Pandey, advocate for respondents 2-4. Mr. R.L.Majgaonkar, advocate for respondent no.6. Mr N.V.Gangal, Advocate for interveners. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- April 16, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith,by consent. Counsel for the Respondents waive notice for respective Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the validity of directions contained in the 2 communication of Respondent No. 1 dated 12th April, 2010 at Exhibit F. The said communication incorporates the Government decision to suspend the Resolution passed by the Nashik Municipal Corporation bearing No. 1191 dated 30th May, 2009 to the extent of two members belonging to independent group. The principal reason for such decision is that only upto one independent Corporator can be allowed to be member of the Standing Committee, considering the 1.33% strength of independent group out of 9 Corporators. In that situation, only one independent member can be nominated as member representing the registered group of independent Corporators. 5. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 on instructions of Respondent No. 6 submits that the Respondent No.6 falls within the fraction category of 0.33, whereas the Petitioner falls within the integer of 1.0 as is the fact noticed from the communication dated 30th May, 2009. It may be mentioned that Respondent No. 6 has not disputed the correctness of the communication dated 30th May, 2009 at Exhibit D. For that reason, the Respondent No. 6 is now not claiming to be nominated as member of Standing Committee in the quota of nominated independent candidate. 6. Considering the impugned communication dated 12th April, 2010 and the statement made by the Respondent No. 6 before us through Counsel, nothing survives for consideration in the present Petition. For, the order dated 12th April, 2010 clearly provides that one member can be nominated from amongst the independent candidates to the Standing Committee and that the Petitioner is the only independent Corporator nominated against the said quota by the registered group of independent Corporators. In that sense, the order dated 12th April, 2010 cannot be said to be adverse to the Petitioner as such. However, since the resolution passed by the Corporator has been suspended 3 on the assumption that both or either of the independent candidates cannot continue to function as member of the Standing Committee, in view of the statement of Respondent No.6 and on accepting the order dated 12th April, 2010 as it is, we see no propriety in continuing the order of suspension of the resolution as against the Petitioner who is the only independent candidate nominated to the Standing Committee and can occupy that post against the allocated quota for the registered group of 9 independent Corporators. The impugned decision dated 12th April, 2010 issued by the Urban Development Department will have to be construed on the above basis. 8. The effect of vacating the seat by Respondent No.6, whether that seat should be filled up by any other category or otherwise is a matter which will have to be considered by the Appropriate Authority on its own merits and steps in that behalf will have to be taken on immediate basis. 9. We were informed by the Learned AGP that the subsequent Resolution passed by the Standing Committee dated 12th April, 2010 electing the Petitioner as Chairman of the Standing Committee has been stayed by the order of the Joint Secretary-Urban Development Department dated 15th April, 2010. The Petitioner on the other hand has been advised to challenge the correctness of the said decision. All questions in that behalf can be considered in the said proceedings. We express no opinion in that behalf. 10. Petition allowed on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)