- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4665 of 2009 by which the High Court has affirmed and upheld the judgment of the Hon ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra declaring that the conduct of the appellant was unbecoming of the President of Uran Municipal Council and declared him to be disqualified for remaining tenure of municipal councilorship under Section 55B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the 'Act 1965) and further declared himdisqualified for a period of six years from the date of the order i.e. 21.3.2009.
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: A. That the appellant was elected as member of Uran Municipal Council and, subsequently, elected as a President of the Municipal Council. The appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 3.12.2008 by the State of Maharashtra calling upon him to explain why action under Section 55B of the Act 1965 be not taken against him. The chargesheet contained the following six charges: Charge No.1 Uran Charitable Medical Trust has built up unauthorized construction on Survey Nos. 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 situated at Mouje Mhatawali to the extent of 1140 square meters for their hospital and you are the Trustee of the said Trust. Municipal Council had issued notice dated 17.10.2006 for demolishing the said unauthorized construction on its own. Shri Dosu Ardesar Bhiwandiwala had filed Regular Civil Suit No.95/07 against the said notice in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran and the same was decided on 19.12.2007 in which plaintiff's application was rejected. Junior Engineer of Uran Municipal Council lodged a complaint with Uran police Station under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 against the said unauthorized construction on 24.7.2007. Shri Jayant Gosal and three others filed Public Interest Litigation No. 57 of 2008 concerning the said unauthorized construction of the said Trust in the Bombay High Court and the same is presently subjudice. You are the Trustee of the said Trust and as President of the Municipal Council, you are duty bound to oppose the unauthorized construction. However, you did not take any action to oppose the same and it appears that you have supported the unauthorized construction. You have, therefore, violated Sections 44, 45, 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Charge No.2 The Municipal Council had called the General Body Meeting on 22.3.2007 by way of Resolution No. 2 Survey Nos. 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 at Mouje Mhatawali area admeasuring about 4000 square meters was proposed for reservation of garden. However, instead of that, the resolution was passed for reserving the same for hospital, nursing home and medical college. At that time, you were presiding over the meeting. By this illegal Act, you have violated Sections 44( 1 )(e) and 42(1), (2) and (3) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965. Charge No.3 After you were elected as the President on 20.12.2006, a General Body Meeting was held on 9.1.2007. Although it is required under Section 80(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965 to hold the General Body Meeting once in two months, no such meeting was held for a period of three months between 28.2.2007 and 28.5.2007. By the said act, you have violated Section 81 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Panchayat Samiti and Industrial Township Act, 1965. Charge No.4 In the meeting held on 9.1.2007, the suggestion to the Agenda No.4 made by Members Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatre that a rented car be provided for the use of the President was rejected by you. Similarly, the Members Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatrehad made suggestion to the Agenda No.ll of the same meeting that new Nalla be constructed near Ughadi at Bhavara Phanaswadi. The said suggestion was rejected after being read over. Similarly, Members Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatre had made suggestion to the Agenda No.20 in the same meeting that new Nalla be constructed in front of the house of Shri Kailash Patail at Bhavara Phanaswadi. The said suggestion was rejected. Similarly, suggestion was made by Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatre to Agenda No.23 that the Standing Committee be authorized to open the tender/approvals and give sanctions for diverse works of the Municipal Council. The said suggestion was rejected. Similarly, suggestion was made by Shri Chintaman Gharat and Shri Shekhar Mhatre to Agenda No. 27 of the same meeting regarding allotment of contract for spraying insecticides in Ward Nos. 1 to 17 of the Municipal Council. It appears from the minutes of the meeting dated 9.1.2007 that even said suggestion was rejected. You have, therefore, violated rules 30, 32(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1966 by frequently rejecting the suggestions of the Members of the Municipal Council. Charge No.5 Tenders were invited on 5.10.2006 for installing CI Pipeline of 300 mm. diameter for outlet and inlet of GSR Tank at Sarvodayawadi within Uran Municipal Council by the construction department of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Panvel by its Outward No.MJPBV /MC/MS/Uran /311/3/06 dated 7.12.2006 at the Town Hall of the Uran Municipal Council. Pursuant to the same three tenders were invited, details whereof are as follows : JUDGEMENT_124_TLPRE0_2012_1.html
(3.) Shri Vinay Navare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that only three charges i.e. charge nos.3, 5 and 6 have been held proved against the appellant. One charge is that the appellant did not call for a meeting for a period of three months i.e. from 28.2.2007 to 28.5.2007 as required under Section 81(1) of the Act 1965, for which the appellant had furnished explanation which was worth acceptance. The officer concerned of the municipal council did not inform the appellant, nor the members asked to hold such meeting as required under Section 81(1) of the Act 1965, so it was merely an inadvertent act and could not be intentional. Therefore, the question of committing any misconduct could not arise.;