KESHAV SHANKAR EKBOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By way of present petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by respondent No. 1 thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Said Act") , vide order dated 9th July, 2003.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 was elected as a President of the respondent No. 5- buldana Municipal Council in the General elections which were held in the year 2001 and she assumed the charge of the Office of the President of respondent no. 5-Municipal Council, Buldana on 18th December, 2001. The petitioner who is resident of Buldana and also Ex-President of the Municipal Council filed a complaint under the provisions of section 55-A of the said Act on 14th February, 2003 with the respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra. It is stated in the complaint that the husband of respondent No. 2 namely Radheshyam Chandak is President of Buldana Urban Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "said trust"). It is alleged in the complaint that a piece of land in Survey No. 99/3, Mahajan Layout, buldana admeasuring 5619 sq. metres was allotted to the said Trust for the purpose of tree plantation and development of garden. It is stated that since the land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was allotted, vide resolution dated 23rd March, 2001 the same was taken back by the Municipal Council. It is alleged that in spite of the above referred resolution, dated 23rd March, 2001, the president of the said Society (husband of respondent No. 2) on one hand and the chief Officer of the Municipal Council on the other hand executed an agreement on 12th July, 2001, thereby granting said land to the said Trust, contrary to the resolution dt. 23-3-2001. It is alleged that, the respondent No. 2, mis-usurping the office of the President, has awarded valuable piece of land to her husband, who is also co-opted Member of the Municipal Council and that the said Award is contrary to the resolution of the Municipal Council. It is, therefore, alleged that this conduct on the part of respondent No. 2 amounts to disgraceful conduct and also misconduct in the discharge of duty. It was, therefore, alleged that respondent No. 2 herein has incurred disqualification under section 55-A and was liable to be removed from the post of President.