9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Verification of the disqualification petition. 2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector. 3. Alleged merger of the political party. 4. Disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. 5. Disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. 6. Compliance with procedural rules. 7. Alleged malafide actions by respondents. 8. Preliminary issue of maintainability of the disqualification petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Verification of the Disqualification Petition: The appellants contended that the disqualification petition was not verified in accordance with Rule 6(4) and 6(3) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987, and thus should have been dismissed in limine. The court held that the provisions are directory in nature and defects in verification are curable. Citing various precedents, including *H.D. Revanna vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda* and *Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore*, the court concluded that defects in verification do not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain and decide a disqualification petition. 2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector: The appellants argued that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the disqualification petition. The court noted that this argument was not raised before the Additional Collector or the High Court. Furthermore, statutory delegation under Section 13(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, allows Additional Collectors to exercise the powers of Collectors. The court found that the Additional Collector was competent to decide the petition, supported by a notification delegating such powers. 3. Alleged Merger of the Political Party: The appellants claimed that their political front had merged with Congress (I), thus protecting them from disqualification under Section 5 of the Act. The court found no factual basis for this claim, noting the lack of specific pleadings or evidence supporting a merger. The court emphasized that Section 5 requires the original political party to merge, which was not the case here as the appellants had formed a separate group. 4. Disqualification under Section 3(1)(a): The court examined whether the appellants had voluntarily given up their membership of NCP, which would result in disqualification under Section 3(1)(a). The court found that the appellants had indeed left NCP and formed a new group, thus incurring disqualification. The legal effect of these admitted facts was that the appellants had voluntarily given up their membership of NCP. 5. Disqualification under Section 3(1)(b): The respondents argued that the appellants had also incurred disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) by disobeying a whip issued by NCP. The court found that the appellants had signed a requisition for a no-confidence motion against the President, contrary to the whip, and voted in favor of the motion. This constituted a violation of Section 3(1)(b), leading to disqualification. 6. Compliance with Procedural Rules: The appellants contended that non-compliance with Rule 4(3) and Rule 5(1) of the Disqualification Rules, 1987, was fatal. The court rejected this argument, stating that these rules are procedural and their non-compliance does not affect the substantive rights or the political affiliation of the councillors. 7. Alleged Malafide Actions by Respondents: The appellants alleged malafide actions by the respondents in co-opting two councillors and constituting new committees. The court found no substance in these allegations, noting that there was no stay against such actions and they would not impact the disqualification issue. 8. Preliminary Issue of Maintainability: The appellants argued that the Additional Collector failed to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of the disqualification petition. The court found that the issue of merger was not relevant to the maintainability of the petition, as the case was about voluntary defection from NCP, not a merger. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants had incurred disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The court found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding verification, jurisdiction, procedural compliance, or alleged malafide actions by the respondents.
|
