Illegal constructions by civic body election candidates: Bombay High Court seeks SEC response on PIL
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor on September 6, was hearing a PIL by one Shantanu Vilas Nandgude argued through advocates Shriram Kulkarni and Vrushali Kabare.
3 min read
Seeking SEC’s response, the bench posted further hearing to October 18. The Bombay High Court recently directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to take a decision within six weeks on a petition seeking candidates for municipal corporation elections to disclose whether he or she either by themselves or through the spouse or dependent has indulged in illegal or unauthorised construction of The PIL sought a direction to the SEC to incorporate an appropriate column in the nomination form for such disclosure under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.
The PIL stated that in case an elected councillor has been found to have indulged in such acts, he/she shall be disqualified. Noting that the PIL raised an issue “which may go a long way so far as reforms in elections to urban local bodies are concerned”, the court directed the SEC to file an affidavit putting on record the decision taken by it.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor on September 6, was hearing a PIL by one Shantanu Vilas Nandgude argued through advocates Shriram Kulkarni and Vrushali Kabare.
The petitioner’s lawyers referred to section 10 (1D) (disqualification of a councillor) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and argued that in case an elected councillor or his/her spouse or dependent is found to have constructed a structure illegally and violating the provisions of the 1949 law or the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966 or is directly or indirectly responsible for the same, he/she shall be disqualified.
Moreover, it was argued that the disqualification shall also be done in case the said person has helped in his/her capacity as corporator/councillor in carrying out illegal construction or has communicated or physically obstructed any competent authority for discharging its official duty of demolishing such unauthorised structure.
The petitioner also argued that at the time of filing nomination forms for the election to urban local bodies, the concerned candidates should be directed to make disclosures if they have directly or indirectly indulged in illegal or unauthorised construction.
The lawyers also referred to October 5, 2015 order of the SEC and stated that same did not contain any requirement of furnishing the information by the councillor concerned in terms of what is provided in Section 10(1D) 1949 law, though the nomination form does require from the candidates to give disclosure about his/her criminal antecedents.
Seeking SEC’s response, the bench posted further hearing to October 18.
You May Like
