1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5290 OF 2009 Vikrant Bhimsen Chavan ..Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner, ..Respondents Thane Municipal Corporation & ors Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni a/w.Mr.R.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.N.R.Bubna, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Ms.Leena Patil i/b.Mr.P.M.Pradhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.3  State CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 6TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for hearing. 2 4. The petitioner is a person residing within the area of respondent No.1  Thane Municipal Corporation. He is a tax payer and also a voter. The petitioner had filed a complaint with respondent No.1  Thane Municipal Commissioner against respondent No.2 on 14th October, 2005, making a grievance that respondent No.2 is disqualified under Sections 10(1D) and 10(1F) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Thereafter, respondent No.1  Thane Municipal Corporation conducted an Enquiry and prepared a Report on 16th January, 2006, and thereafter, Show Cause Notice was issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 did not file any reply to the said Show Cause Notice. However, the respondent No.1 did not proceed with the matter. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6034 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 22nd April, 2009, and the following directions 3 were issued. Therefore, as a last chance, we give respondent No.3 two weeks from today to file a reply to the show-cause notice dated 20th May, 2006. If no reply is filed within two weeks before the Commissioner, the right to file reply would stand closed. The Commissioner shall thereafter decide the matter, after giving him a fair chance of hearing, within two weeks thereafter. In any case, the matter shall end within four weeks from today. Thereafter, the Commissioner has passed an Order to the following effect. The issue of disqualification of Respondent Shri Baliram Vasudev Naibagkar pursuant to Show Cause Notice No.TMC/DMC-HQ/GAD/4602 dt. 20th May, 2006 shall be placed before the General Body of the Thane Municipal Corporation for making a reference to the Judge to decide the question of disqualification of Shri Baliram Vasudev Naibagkar. This Order was passed in view of Section 12 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and, therefore, the said subject is required to be placed in the General Body Meeting of the Thane 4 Municipal Corporation. This Order was communicated by the respondent No.1 to the Mayor. However, inspite of the communication of this Order and even though the Meeting of the Thane Municipal Corporation was held on 9th April, 2009, the said subject was not placed by the Mayor in the General Body Meeting of the Thane Municipal Corporation and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions as prayed for in the Writ Petition. In fact, the matter of disqualification of respondent No.2 is pending since the year 2005, the respondent No.1 having found that no reply has been filed should have placed the matter before the Mayor for making a reference to the District Judge as required under Section 12 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 but that was not done. For that purpose the Writ Petition was required to be adjourned by this Court. Thereafter, the Orders were passed by the respondent No.1 which are produced above. Inspite of that, the Mayor has not placed the subject on 5 the Agenda on 9th April, 2009. Thus, what we have noticed is that the respondent No.1 and all other Officers are shielding the respondent No.2 by protracting the issue. There are no justifiable reasons on record placed by the respondent No.1  Thane Municipal Corporation as to why the issue of the disqualification of the respondent No.2 was not placed in the General Body Meeting. It is to be noted that neither the Commissioner nor the General Body has to decide the matter of disqualification but it is to be decided by the District Judge. Respondent No.1 had an opportunity in this respect to make a reference but time has been consumed by the Commissioner from the year 2005 to 2009. It shows the manner in which the respondents have tried to shield the respondent No.2. What we find is that in the earlier Order this Court had directed to decide the matter within a period of four weeks. The matter should be concluded by the respondent No.1 does not mean that only he has to pass an Order and place it before the Mayor. The 6 said contemplates the entire process to be completed including the Orders of General Body Meeting of the Thane Municipal Corporation. We find that the Order of this Court has been wrongly interpreted by the Commissioner to the extent that he was only obliged to dispose of the application before him. We make it clear that the directions were to the Officers as well as to the Corporation. The Corporation was under an obligation to see that whole process under Section 12 is completed. 5. Our attention has been invited to the Chapter II Schedule 1 which deals with the proceedings of the Corporation. Under Rule 1(a) There shall be in each month at least one ordinary meeting of the Corporation which shall be held not later than the twentieth day of the month. Sub-Rule (b) is not relevant because it speaks about the first General Body Meeting of the Corporation. Sub-Rule (c) relates to the day, 7 time and place of meeting shall in every other case be fixed by the Mayor or in the event of the office of Mayor being vacant, or of the death or resignation of the Mayor or of his ceasing to be a councillor, or of his being incapable of acting, by the Deputy Mayor, or failing both the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. 6. Therefore, it is submitted by Mr.N.R.Bubna, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 that the day, time and place is to be fixed by the Mayor of the Corporation. What we find is that Rule (c) applies in cases where Rule 1(a) and 1(b) do not apply. Insofar as Rule 1(a) is concerned, Mayor has no power to decide the day, time and place. The said power is of the Commissioner in the absence of provisions to that effect. Rule 1(a) contemplates that there shall be Meeting of the Corporation held not later than the twentieth day of the month. We, therefore, direct the respondents and the Officers, who are concerned with the fixing of the General Body Meeting of the Corporation, that the same 8 shall be scheduled on 20th August, 2009, and the subject regarding disqualification of the respondent No.2 and for making a reference to the District Judge as per the Order of the respondent No.1 shall be placed in the said Meeting. The said subject of the disqualification of the respondent No.2 and reference to be made to the District Judge will not be differed and it will be discussed and decided in the said Meeting. We further clarify that the said Meeting shall not be adjourned on the pretext of the Code of conduct that may introduced by the Election Commission. 7. With the aforesaid directions the above Writ Petition is allowed by making the Rule absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )