1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 433 /2011 (Chandrashekhar H. Chaudhary vs. The Collector, Yavatmal & others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 26th April, 2011. Heard Mr. F.T.Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2; Mr. D.M. Kale, for respondent no. 3 and Mr. R.S.Sundaram, for respondents 4 and 5. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of rejection of nomination paper submitted by the petitioner for contesting the election of Chairman of Subject Committee vide order dated 21.12.2010 by the Presiding Officer/respondent no.2. The nomination paper filed by the petitioner came to be rejected in view of provisions of Section 64 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Section 64 deals with constitution of the Standing Committees of 'A' & 'B' class Councils and contemplates that the Standing Committees referred to in section 62 shall consists of : “(i) Chairman-President of the Council (ii) Members 2 (a) Chairman of ( all Subjects Committees) (b)Three members from amongst the Councillors (nominated) in the same manner as prescribed for (nomination) of members of the Subject- Committees:” The provision further contemplates that no councillor who is already ( nominated) as a member of more than one Subject Committee, shall be eligible to be a member of the Standing Committee. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute, that at the time of filing of the nomination paper by the petitioner, the petitioner was a member of two subject Committees i.e. (1) Public Works Committee and, (2) Sanitation, Medical and Public Health Committee and as per the proviso to section 64, no councillor who is already nominated as member of more than one Subject- Committee shall be eligible to be a member of the Standing Committee and, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to file the nomination for contesting the said election. Hence the impugned action action taken by the respondents is sustainable in law. The other contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to Section 63 of the Act and Rules 3 and 5 of the Chairman Election Rules 2006 do not further the case of the petitioner. 3 For the reasons cited above, Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE sahare