Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to Nominations of Standing Committee in Akola Municipal Corporation Under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The court examined the interpretation of Section 31A(2) regarding relative strength and seat allocation, but the available judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final decision.

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the nominations to the Standing Committee of the Akola Municipal Corporation made in April 2015.

Writ Petition No. 1921 of 2015 sought to quash the general body meetings held on 7th and 13th April 2015. Writ Petition No. 2429 of 2015 sought to set aside the election held on 13th April 2015 and grant a seat on the Standing Committee to the petitioner.

The petitioners contended that the seat allocation process was flawed and that the petitioner in WP 2429/2015 was denied its rightful seat based on the relative strength of Aghadis as computed under Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

Previous litigation included Writ Petition No. 1426 of 2012 (decided 08.05.2012, reported as 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 874), Writ Petition No. 2571 of 2013 (decided 14.08.2013, reported as 2013(5) Mh.L.J. 538), and Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2015 before the Supreme Court (decided 02.02.2015, reported as 2015(2) SCALE 136) which restored the resolution dated 29.04.2013 and recognized the finality of the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 28.08.2012 rejecting Aghadi registration.

Whether the nominations made to the Standing Committee on 7th and 13th April 2015 were legally valid? Whether the petitioner Akola Vikas Maha Sangh was entitled to a seat on the Standing Committee based on its relative strength? Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the alternate remedy under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949? Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition given its registration status as an Aghadi? Whether all members elected on 13th April 2015 were necessary parties to the petition?

Petitioners argued that the petitioner Maha Sangh was entitled to one seat on the Standing Committee as per the relative strength calculation, that Section 451 is not an absolute bar to a writ petition as held in Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti v. Akola Municipal Corporation, that the petitioner's status as an Aghadi had been recognized by the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 28.08.2012, and that only the likely displaced party (Bharip Bahujan Mahasangh) needed to be impleaded. Respondent Mayor contended that the dispute could be resolved under Section 451, that the petitioner was not a registered Aghadi and thus lacked locus, that a fraction-only Aghadi cannot supersede a party with a full number in seat allocation, and that all newly elected members were necessary parties. Municipal Corporation filed written submissions supporting the respondents. Additional Government Pleader supported the respondents' arguments. Learned Advocate Shri Charpe supported the petitioners' calculations and entitlement.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

In these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the nominations for constitution of Standing Committee of Akola Municipal Corporation in April, 2015, though grounds of challenge are different. The Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that the said order of the Divisional Commissioner rejecting the application for registration had attained finality and therefore the Writ Petition filed before this Court questioning Resolution dated 29042013 was liable to be dismissed. He contends that the intention of the State Legislature is to have representatives of even small Fronts/Aghadis which may not procure full number when the relative strength is determined, and hence this peculiar scheme has been worked out to see that all groups get an opportunity & are represented on Standing Committee. According to him, the mathematical exercise of finding out whether the petitioner is entitled to one seat on the Standing Committee or not, can be effectively looked into under Section 451 and this Court in the judgment reported at 2012(4) Mh.L.J., 874 (supra) reaches a finding on alternate remedy in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.

On 16.02.2012, 73 Corporators were elected as General Body Members of Akola Municipal Corporation. The first Standing Committee of sixteen members was constituted on 20.03.2012; this was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1426 of 2012, decided on 08.05.2012 (2012(4) Mh.L.J. 874). On 29.04.2013, eight members retired and replacements were sought; the process was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2571 of 2013, which was allowed on 14.08.2013 (2013(5) Mh.L.J. 538). The matter reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2015, and on 02.02.2015, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the resolution dated 29.04.2013. It noted that the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 28.08.2012 rejecting the application for registration of an Aghadi had attained finality. After the Supreme Court's order, the Municipal Commissioner issued notices on 30.03.2015 convening a general body meeting on 07.04.2015 to fill all sixteen seats (eight vacancies from 2014 and eight from 2015). On 07.04.2015, only the first eight vacancies were filled; the remaining eight were filled in a meeting on 13.04.2015. The present writ petitions were filed challenging these nominations. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final order.

• Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: 31A(2), 451
• Constitution of India: Article 226