Judgment B.R. GAVAI,J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners have challenged the rejection of their nomination papers for the office of the nominated councillors. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The respondent No.3, Municipal Commissioner, Aurangabad had issued a notification on 26th May, 2010, stating therein that the nomination papers for filling up 5 posts of nominated councillors would be available in the office of the Municipal Secretary, from 31st May, 2010 and that the nomination papers would be accepted on 4/6/2010 and 5/6/2010. 4. All the petitioners claiming that they are representing the recognized Non Government Organizations engaged in social welfare activities, submitted their nomination papers alongwith the necessary documents. It appears that the scrutiny of nomination papers was held on 1st September, 2010. However, after a period of one month i.e. on 1st October, 2010, the impugned order was passed on the nomination papers of the petitioners, stating therein that the petitioners are disqualified in view of the letter addressed by the Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dated 12th July, 2010. It is further stated that the applicants are representing the Community Based Organizations. However, since the organizations were engaged in educational or sports activities, the applicants are disqualified and hence, the nomination papers have been rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this court. 5. We have heard Shri Shah and Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thombre and Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Smt. Gondhalekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 6. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that, in view of Rule 4(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualification and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Rules of 2007” for the sake of brevity), a person to be eligible for being nominated as a candidate for the office of the nominated Councillor, as per Rule 4(b), should have an experience of not less than five years, as a member of the recognized Non Government Organisation and Community based Organisation engaged in social welfare activities working within the area of a Municipal Corporation or a Council. It is submitted that, however, the impugned order would reveal that the nomination papers are rejected only on the ground that since the applicants are representing Community based Organisations which are registered for the educational or sports activities, the nomination papers are rejected. It is further submitted that the rejection of the nomination papers is based on the letter of the Government Pleader and not by application of mind by the Commissioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. 7. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Norms for Representation to the Non Government Organisations and Community based Organisations in the wards Committee) Rules, 2000 ( hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules of 2000”), to point out as to what qualification is required of an organization to be eligible to be considered as an organisation eligible under the said Rules of 2007. 8. Per contra, Smt. Gondhalekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submits that an organization to be eligible under Rule 4(b) of the said Rules of 2007, has to be a Community based organization engaged in only `social welfare' activities. It is submitted that being engaged in an educational activity or a sports activity is not the same, as being engaged in a social welfare activity and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld. The learned counsel has also sought to rely on the opinion of the learned Govt. Pleader to substantiate her arguments. The learned counsel further tried to emphasize that the words “member of a recognized Non Government Organisation” in sub-rule (b) of Rule 4 of the said Rules of 2007, has to be read as a member of the “recognized Non Government Organization , which is a “Community based Organization” engaged in “Social Welfare” activities, and not merely a “Non Government Organization” 9. Section 5, sub- section (2)(b), of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for the sake of brevity) provides thus :- “5 (2) Each Corporation shall consist of :- (a) ..... Section 5, sub- section (2)(b), of the Bombay provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for the sake of brevity) provides thus :- “5 (2) Each Corporation shall consist of :- (a) ..... (b) Such number of nominated councillors not exceeding five, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration, to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed.” Perusal of the said Statutory Provision would reveal that such number of nominated councillors not exceeding 5, having special knowledge and experience in municipal administration are required to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner, as may be prescribed. 10. It appears that in view of the enabling provision in clause b) of sub-section (2) of Section 5, of the said Act. The State of Maharashtra, vide notification dated 21st February, 2007, has framed rules, for the purpose of appointment of nominated councillors. Rule 4 of the said Rules of 2007, deals with the qualifications for nomination. Since we are concerned only with the category of recognized Non Government Organization and Community based Organizations, the relevant provision, read thus: - 4. Qualification for nomination: - Any person who fulfills any of the following conditions shall be eligible for being nominated as a candidate for the office of the nominated Councillor,: - (a) ......... (b) has an experience of not less than five years, as a member of recognized non Government Organisations and community based organizations engaged in social welfare activities working within the area of a Municipal Corporation or a Council” Rule 5 of the said Rules of 2007, deals with the power of the Commissioner to recommend the names of suitable persons to the Corporation for being appointed as nominated Councillor, after consulting the leader of the house, leader of the opposition and leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the relative strength of such parties and groups. The names of such persons recommended shall not exceed the number of Councillors to be nominated in accordance with Rule 3. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with the power of the Corporation to accept or reject the proposal of the Commissioner and further enable the mayor to nominate any member not belonging to any such party or group. 11. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with the power of the Corporation to accept or reject the proposal of the Commissioner and further enable the mayor to nominate any member not belonging to any such party or group. 11. It would thus be clear that the only provision that would fall for interpretation of this court, would be clause (b) of Rule (4) of the said rules of 2007. 12. The first principle of statutory interpretation is that, a provision has to be read giving it its plain and literal meaning, as it is. Only in the event, the intention of the legislature cannot be gathered by adopting the principle of plain interpretation, a recourse to other rules of interpretation can be taken. In our considered view, if the language used by the rule making authority in Rule 4(b) of the Rules is read literally giving it its plain meaning, the intention of the legislature can be gathered. In our considered view, the interpretation of the said rule would lead to the following conclusion: - “ A person to be eligible to be nominated to the office of the nominated councillor from the said category should have: - 1. Not less than 5 years experience; 2. Such experience has to be as a member of a recognized Non Government Organization or a Community based Organization; 3. Such Non Government Organization or Community based Organization, has to be engaged in a social welfare activity within the area of a Municipal Corporation or a Council.” It is thus clear that a person to be eligible to be a nominated councillor has to be a member either of a recognized Non Government Organization or a Community based Organization. 13. If the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation is to be accepted that a person to be eligible for being nominated as a councillor has to be a member of a Non Government Organization which is also a Community based Organization, engaged in Social Welfare activity, then in our view it will amount to re-writing the said provision. If the contention is to be accepted, then, nothing could have precluded the rule making authority from using the words, “as a member of a Recognized Non Government Community based Organization”. The intention of the legislature is very clear. If the contention is to be accepted, then, nothing could have precluded the rule making authority from using the words, “as a member of a Recognized Non Government Community based Organization”. The intention of the legislature is very clear. A recognized organization has to be either a Non Government Organization or a Community based Organization. It is not necessary that an organization has to be a Non Government Organization and also a Community based Organization. 14. It is further to be noted that, if the arguments of the learned counsel for the Corporation are to be accepted, then, such arguments would run contrary to the impugned orders. The impugned orders themselves state that the applicants having applied from Community based Organizations they are not eligible since the organizations are registered as either Educational institutions or sports institution. 15. We are unable to understand as to how an educational activity or sports activity cannot be said to be a Social Welfare activity. In the absence of a specific definition as to what would constitute or amount to “a social welfare activity”, the contention raised by the Corporation as well as the reasoning given in the impugned orders, are totally unsustainable in law. 16. There is an another aspect of the matter. When an authority is bestowed with discretion, it alone has to exercise it independently. Such a discretion cannot be exercised on the basis of the opinion of someone else. From the perusal of the orders, it is clear that the Commissioner has passed the orders only on the basis of the opinion of the learned Government Pleader, without applying his mind to the provisions of the Rules. Such an exercise is not expected of an Officer, who holds the office of the Municipal Commissioner. We also do not understand as to why, when the Scrutiny was held on 1st September, 2010, the impugned orders have been passed after a period of one month i.e. on 1st October, 2010. In such matters, it was expected of the Commissioner to have acted diligently and within a reasonable period. This fortifies the contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed without applying mind by the Commissioner. 17. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. In such matters, it was expected of the Commissioner to have acted diligently and within a reasonable period. This fortifies the contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders have been passed without applying mind by the Commissioner. 17. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. The decision of the Municipal Commissioner rejecting the Nomination papers of the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. 18. Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 1/10/2010, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Municipal Commissioner, for reconsidering the nomination papers of the petitioners, in the light of what has been observed hereinabove. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs.