It has been more than four year since the general body in the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (MBMC) was elected for a five year term in 2017.
However, the controversy in context to the appointment of co-opted members in the civic body refuses to die down. In a significant development, the Mumbai High Court has served notices to the state government and the MBMC seeking affidavit-in-reply on the process of nominating co-opted members in the civic body.
The action followed in response to a writ petition (5334/2021) filed by Nitesh Mungekar challenging the appointments. After extended rounds of delays, the state government’s urban development wing had cleared the decks to nominate five members including three from the BJP and one each from the Congress and Shiv-Sena.
Government guidelines clearly state that people aspiring for co-opted seats should be non-political individuals having two years’ experience as commissioner, five years as assistant commissioner, five years’ experience of a social organization or should be lawyers, engineers, experts or doctors.
However, rules were brazenly bent in the general body meet to offer backdoor entries to self-styled politicians owing their loyalties to local leaders. Mungekar had earlier moved the high court and the apex court which had directed the state government to take cognizance of the points raised by the petitioner before finalizing such nominations.
However, the directions were ignored, prompting Mungekar to knock the judicial doors again. Norms for co-opted members are aimed at increasing active participation of distinguished social workers and professionals in the transparent functioning, however it has become a normal practice for most civic bodies including the MBMC, to bend the rules, despite judicial intervention.
Members are co-opted according to the strength of each party in the house. Although co-opted members do not have voting rights, they can participate in debates and raise issues in the civic house.
