In the high Court

A public interest petition was filed by one Manohar A Panshikar who had challenged the institution of the two posts in the Thane Municipal Corporation and the cost the civic bodies had to bear in keeping these posts.

Quoting from the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, advocate for the petitioner, Suhas Oak argued that the Act does not have any provision for these two posts. Also, he contended, that while section 88 of the Act provided for various items on which municipal funds could be spent, there were no provisions for the corporation spending lakhs of rupees in providing amenities and other facilities to these twoseats. Since the posts were not sanctioned by law, they were illegal and should be set aside, the petitioner had pleaded.

The matter, had been raised by Panshikar since 1997 when he first wrote a letter against the posts to the then municipal commissioner of Thane. The answer he received was that though the BPMC Act did not allow for the posts, it was a convention being followed. In his reply the TMC secretary claimed that the corporation was seeking legal advice from the state government.

In another answer to another letter it was divulged that the TMC had in 1998 spent Rs 3.66 lakh for the Leader of the House and Rs 3.77 lakh for the Leader of the Opposition on AC cabins and AC cars, drivers, tea and snacks, peons and staff, telephone bills etc. These expenses did not, however, include the cost of the cars given to each that cost about Rs four lakh, it was revealed.

However, the state government, in its affidavit argued that while there were no provisions in the Act, it was a practice to haveleaders of the house and the opposition in the civic bodies. An affidavit filed by D S Gujre, Deputy Secretary of Urban Development Department claimed that the state would be amending the Act soon to give these bodies a constitutional presence.

However, since the model code of conduct was on, the state had refrained from doing so.

Prima facie, MMC elections are vitiated

The division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna on Monday felt that the recent elections to the Maharashtra Medical Council MMC looked vitiated with large scale irregularities. However, on the request of the advocate for the MMC, V M Thorat, the bench directed that the petitioners, Forum for Medical Ethics put in an affidavit all their complaints about the elections and gave the MMC leave to file a rejoinder.

The matter will next come up on Friday. In an earlier hearing, the division bench had directed that a state government8217;s observer would be filing a report on the elections that ended on July 12 andresults were declared soon after. While the results of the elections have been declared, the Forum today took up the observors8217; report which stated that while a total of 27,411 ballot papers were received, only 20848 were accounted for.

Around 2220 ballot papers were rejected on alleged signature verification, and 2837 ballot papers, including original papers that had one or more duplicates were rejected. 8220;Which means that of the total votes cast, the unaccepted ballot papers accounted for 5.5 per cent of the total ballots received,8221; said senior counsel for the Forum, V C Kotwal. 8220;We can8217;t understand how the elections can be called fair,8221; he added. Kotwal also alleged that there was no verification of signatures on the duplicates either. 8220;Duplicate ballot papers were sent in bunches even when there was no application made for them,8221; he alleged. He asked that the files and records on the applications made for duplicates be brought to the court.

Expressing surprise Justice Srikrishna asked: Where dothe originals go, if there are only duplicates?8221; Thorat on his part, however, countered the observer8217;s report. 8220;None of the ballot papers went waste,8221; said Thorat, 8220;we have records. The observors8217; report is not accurate8221;. Thorat argued that the petition that dated back to 1997, which was at first filed by the Forum to prevent irregularities in the elections, was now being used by those who lost in the elections.

On the issue of the duplicate papers, he stated that the problem was with the procedure. 8220;For years now when we receive originals and duplicates, we cancel both of them. We admit that there is a fault in the procedure. We anyway give duplicates only when there is an application,8221; he stated. He argued that Kotwal8217;s accusations were across the bar and he needed that they file an affidavit with their complaints.

At one point of time, Justice Srikrishna was keen on staying the notification of the elected members that is done by the state government once the nominees of the government arechosen. However, with assistant government pleader Abhay Patki stating that the present code of conduct made it impossible to do so, the Justice refrained from staying the notification.