Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from two writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2012 was filed by Shri Anil (Vidyarthi) Chanderlal Ailani, a former elected councillor of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, challenging the nomination of five nominated councillors (Respondent Nos. 4-8) under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. He had applied for nomination but was not selected; the General Body resolution dated 9 April 2012 nominated the five respondents instead. He sought quashing of the resolution and his own nomination, alleging violation of eligibility criteria and non-consideration of the Municipal Commissioner’s recommendations. Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2013 was filed by Practicing Architects and Engineers Association of Bhivandi challenging the nomination of councillors to Bhiwandi Nijampur Municipal Corporation and seeking to set aside part of Rule 5(1) of the 2012 Rules. They contended that eligible members from the association were not considered and sought directions to fill vacancies with their members. Both petitions came before a Division Bench on 12 August 2014 where the contesting respondents raised a preliminary objection that an election dispute remedy under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (MMC Act) was available. Reliance was placed on Ashok Bodha v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ulhasnagar (Writ Petition No. 5665 of 2002, decided 20 September 2003) where a Division Bench held such remedy available to challenge nomination/election of nominated councillors. However, a later Division Bench in Sharanbasappa Rachappa Khambad v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 8962 of 2013, decided 10 June 2014) had held that under the similar provision (Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965) no election dispute remedy lies for challenging appointment of nominated councillors. Finding a clear conflict in views, the Division Bench referred the above question to the Full Bench. The Full Bench heard arguments on 15 January 2016 and reserved judgment. The only argument recorded in the excerpt is that of Senior Counsel Mr. Gorwadkar for the petitioner in WP No. 1016 of 2013, who submitted that the definition of ‘Councillor’ under Section 2(11) MMC Act was not fully considered in Ashok Bodha, and that a nominated councillor cannot be equated with an elected one as the statute restricts voting rights and eligibility for Mayor/Chairperson. The nominated councillor enters for special knowledge/experience, and his nomination is governed by the 2012 Rules. The remaining arguments and the court’s final decision are not part of the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a remedy of election dispute under Section 16 of the said Act or Section 21 of the said Act of 1965 is available to a voter who is entitled to vote in General Ward Elections for challenging the election/nomination of a nominated Councillor?
