JUDGMENT :- D.D. SINHA, J. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3, Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, and Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. 2) The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice of meeting dated 17/2/2011 issued by the respondent no.2 President, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby special meeting of Zilla Parishad was convened on 28/2/2011 to consider the subject, i.e. change in the Subject Committees currently with the Chairmen of the Subject Committees, has preferred this petition. 3) Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in March 2007 for the term of five years. The term of the office of the President, Vice President and Chairman of Subject Committees is two and half years. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of Subject Committee, i.e. Finance and Construction in the meeting held on 2/12/2009. The term of the Chairman of the Subject Committee is two and half years as per provisions of Section 83(6) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) since it is co-terminus with term of the Office of the President and Vice President as stipulated in Section 43 of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that once the Chairman of Subject Committee is elected under Section 83 of the Act of 1961, no change is permissible till he completes the term of two and half years as provided in Section 83(6) of the Act of 1961. 4) Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the Collector has to convene meeting of Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees (other than the Vice President). Such meeting is required to be presided over by the Collector or such Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the Collector may, by order in writing, appoint in this behalf. The meeting is required to be conducted as per procedure mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 of the Act of 1961. Such meeting is required to be presided over by the Collector or such Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the Collector may, by order in writing, appoint in this behalf. The meeting is required to be conducted as per procedure mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 of the Act of 1961. It is contended that as per Section 83(1-A) of the Act of 1961, it is the statutory obligation on the Collector to convene a meeting of the Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees and in view of provisions of Section 83(6), the provisions of Section 43 of the Act of 1961 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of term of appointment of the Chairman of the Subject Committee, which is two and half years as provided in Section 43 of the Act of 1961. In view of these provisions, once the Chairman of Subject Committee is elected, he continues to hold the Office for a period of two and half years from the date of his election, which cannot be either curtailed, modified or changed by the Zilla Parishad by exercising power under Section 111(11) of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that Chapter VII deals with conduct of business of Zilla Parishad and Section 111 deals with meetings of Zilla Parishad. It is contended that the meeting held by the Collector under Section 83(1-A) of the Act of 1961 for electing the Chairman of Subject Committee is a statutory duty of the Collector whereas meeting required to be held and conducted under Section 111 of the Act of 1961 is for transacting the business of Zilla Parishad and, therefore, the Zilla Parishad cannot by exercising power under Section 111(11) of the Act of 1961 nullify, alter, modify or change the tenure of the Chairman of the Subject Committee, which is two and half years from the date of his election. 5) Learned Senior Counsel Shri Dharmadhikari has further contended that in the instant case, petitioner was elected as Chairman of Subject Committee in the meeting held on 2/12/2009 and allotted Subject Committee on 29/12/2009 and, therefore, he is legally entitled to hold the said office for a period of two and half years. 5) Learned Senior Counsel Shri Dharmadhikari has further contended that in the instant case, petitioner was elected as Chairman of Subject Committee in the meeting held on 2/12/2009 and allotted Subject Committee on 29/12/2009 and, therefore, he is legally entitled to hold the said office for a period of two and half years. However, President of Zilla Parishad by the impugned notice dated 17/2/2011 communicated that special meeting of Zilla Parishad would be held on 28/2/2011 to decide the subject, i.e. change in Subject Committees currently with the Chairmen of the Subject Committees. It is, therefore, contended that action of the respondent no.2 President, Zilla Parishad is without authority of law and unsustainable in law and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6) Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3, Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, and Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, have submitted that argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of Sections 83 and 43 of the Act of 1961. It is contended that Section 83 of the Act of 1961 provides for manner in which election of the Chairman of Subject Committee needs to be held and it nowhere provides that Chairman of Subject Committee shall be elected for a particular Subject Committee except Chairman elected for Women and Child Welfare Committee and Agricultural Committee as those Subject Committees are reserved for candidates belonging to a particular category. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected for the two Subject Committees. It is contended that Section 83(2) of the Act of 1961 provides that the person elected as Chairman of Subject Committee shall be allotted Subject Committees as the Parishad may determine. It is, therefore, submitted that power is given to the Zilla Parishad to determine, who will be put in charge of which Subject Committee. It is contended that in the present case, election of Chairman of Subject Committee was held on 2/12/2009 and the meeting of Zilla Parishad for considering allotment of Subject Committee to the elected Chairman was held on 29/12/2009 and resolution was passed by the Zilla Parishad to that effect. It is contended that in the present case, election of Chairman of Subject Committee was held on 2/12/2009 and the meeting of Zilla Parishad for considering allotment of Subject Committee to the elected Chairman was held on 29/12/2009 and resolution was passed by the Zilla Parishad to that effect. It is submitted that Section 111(1) of the Act of 1961 empowers the Zilla Parishad to hold meeting for the purpose of considering the resolution already passed by the Zilla Parishad. The meeting was called in view of requisition moved by the required number of Councillors and meeting for consideration of allotment of charge of the Subject Committees was held on 28/2/2011 and the newly added respondent no.4, who was elected as Chairman of the Subject Committee is now given charge of the Finance and Works Subject Committee, of which petitioner was the Chairman earlier. It is submitted that issuance of the impugned notice is well within the power vested in the Zilla Parishad under the provisions of the Act of 1961 and decision taken in the meeting held on 28/2/2011 is, therefore, sustainable in law. 7) The learned Counsel for the respondents have alternatively submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternate remedy available under Section 267-A of the Act of 1961. The change in allotment of Subject Committee was declared by the Zilla Parishad in the meeting held on 28/2/2011 by passing resolution and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can invoke provisions of Section 267-A of the Act of 1961 for questioning the validity of the said Resolution before the Commissioner. Since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternate efficacious remedy available to him before invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 8) We have given anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute : The petitioner was elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in the election held in March 2007. The Collector in view of provisions of Section 83(1-A) of the Act of 1961 convened the meeting of Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees on 2/12/2009. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute : The petitioner was elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in the election held in March 2007. The Collector in view of provisions of Section 83(1-A) of the Act of 1961 convened the meeting of Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees on 2/12/2009. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of Subject Committees in the said meeting and Zilla Parishad convened another meeting on 29/12/2009 and passed a resolution whereby the Subject Committees were allotted to elected Chairmen. The petitioner was made Chairman of Finance and Construction Committee with effect from 29/12/2009. The Chairman of Zilla Parishad issued the impugned notice dated 17/2/2011 whereby intimation was given that the special meeting of Zilla Parishad is convened on 28/2/2011 for discussing the subject, i.e. “change in the Subject Committees currently with the Chairmen of the Subject Committees”, which is impugned in the petition. 9) This Court vide order dated 25/2/2011 permitted Zilla Parishad to hold the meeting, which was scheduled on 28/2/2011. However, decision of change in the Subject Committees, if taken, was made subject to result of this petition. The Zilla Parishad held meeting on 28/2/2011 and passed a Resolution whereby newly added respondent no.4 Shri Ganesh Arekar to the petition, was allotted Finance and Works Subject Committee of which the petitioner earlier was Chairman. 10) The issue which falls for our consideration in the present petition is, the Councillor, who is elected as Chairman of the Subject Committee in the meeting convened by the Collector under Section 83(1-A) of the Act of 1961, holds the office of Chairman of Subject Committee for two and half years, whether the Zilla Parishad is competent to effect change in allocation of Subject Committees before expiry of period of two and half years by exercising power under Section 111 of the Act of 1961? 11) It will be appropriate for us to consider the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961 before we consider the issue on merits. The controversy in question basically revolves around the provisions of sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2) and (6) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961, which read thus : “Section 83 : Chairman of Subjects Committees – (1) There shall be five Chairmen of the Subjects Committees of every Zilla Parishad of whom the Vice President shall be one. The controversy in question basically revolves around the provisions of sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2) and (6) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961, which read thus : “Section 83 : Chairman of Subjects Committees – (1) There shall be five Chairmen of the Subjects Committees of every Zilla Parishad of whom the Vice President shall be one. (1-A) Not later than 15 days from the first meeting of a Zilla Parishad convened under Section 45, the Collector shall convene another meeting of the Zilla Parishad for the election of the Chairmen of Subjects Committees (other than the Vice President). The meeting shall be presided over by the Collector or such Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector as the Collector may, by order in writing appoint in this behalf. The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to the procedure to be followed at such meeting. (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Councillors shall be from amongst the elected Councillors (excluding the President and Vice President), elected four persons to be Chairmen of the Subjects Committees, and each such Chairman and the Vice President shall be placed in charge of such Committee or Committees (but not more than two Committees) as the Parishad may determine : Provided that, the Chairman of the Women and Child Welfare Committee shall be from amongst the elected women Councillors. (2-A) ….. (3) ….. (4) ….. (5) ….. (6) The provisions of Section 43 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the term of appointment of the Chairmen of Subjects Committees.” Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 stipulates that there shall be five Chairmen of Subjects Committees of every Zilla Parishad of whom the Vice President shall be one. Sub-section (1-A) contemplates that Collector shall convene meeting not later than fifteen days from the first meeting of Zilla Parishad convened under Section 45 for election of Chairmen of Subjects Committees (other than Vice President). The meeting shall be presided over by the Collector or such Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the case may be. Sub-section (1-A) contemplates that Collector shall convene meeting not later than fifteen days from the first meeting of Zilla Parishad convened under Section 45 for election of Chairmen of Subjects Committees (other than Vice President). The meeting shall be presided over by the Collector or such Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the case may be. It also stipulates that provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 45, which deal with the procedure, need to be followed by the Collector while conducting meeting under sub-section (1-A) for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees. 12) Section 45 of the Act of 1961 deals with the procedure for election of President and Vice President. Sub-section (2) thereof requires Collector or such other Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the Collector may by order in writing appoint in this behalf, to call a meeting to elect President and Vice President of Zilla Parishad. Such meeting is required to be presided over by the Collector or his nominee and shall, when presiding over such meeting, have the same power as the President when presiding over a meeting of the Zilla Parishad has, but shall not have the right to vote. Sub-section (3) of Section 45 contemplates that if in the election of the President or Vice President, there is an equality of votes, the result of the election shall be decided by lot to be drawn in the presence of the Collector or the Officer presiding, in such manner as he may determine. The plain reading of the language of sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 demonstrates that when Collector convenes and presides over the meeting of Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees, he is required to conduct the said meeting by following procedure stipulated in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 45 of the Act of 1961. 13) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 83 clearly demonstrate that four persons from amongst the elected Councillors (excluding President and Vice President) are required to be elected as Chairmen of Subject Committees and placed in-charge of such Committee or Committees as the Parishad may determine. It is, therefore, evident that the Chairmen of Subject Committees are elected in the meeting called and presided over by the Collector as per provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 83. It is, therefore, evident that the Chairmen of Subject Committees are elected in the meeting called and presided over by the Collector as per provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 83. However, it is for the Zilla Parishad to place them in-charge of such Committee or Committees as the Parishad may determine. In other words, Chairmen of Subject Committees are elected in the meeting presided over by the Collector and allotment of Subject Committee to such elected Chairmen is required to be done by the Zilla Parishad. The power exercised by the Collector under sub-section (1-A) is restricted only to convene a meeting of Zilla Parishad for election of Chairmen of Subject Committees, preside over the same and elect Chairmen of Subject Committees by following procedure stipulated under sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 45 of the Act of 1961 whereas allotment of Subject to Chairmen of such Committees is entirely within the jurisdiction and domain of Zilla Parishad. The power, which is exercised by the Zilla Parishad, is completely distinct and different than the one exercised by the Collector under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the power to elect Chairmen of Subject Committees by the Collector cannot be equated with the power exercised by Zilla Parishad for allocating Subject Committees to such elected Chairmen. The power of Collector exercised under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 is only to elect Chairmen of Subject Committees by following the procedure as stipulated in the said Section and has nothing to do with allocation of Subject Committees to the elected Chairmen. In view of provisions of subsection (2) of Section 83, it is the Zilla Parishad alone, which has to determine which Chairman of Subject Committee shall be put in-charge of which Subject Committee or Committees and, therefore, the powers exercised by the Collector under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 and by the Parishad under sub-section (2) of Section 83 are inherently different and distinct and are exercised by different Authorities in completely different situations and for totally different purposes. 14) It is no doubt true that sub-section (6) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 contemplates that provisions of Section 43 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the term of appointment of the Chairmen of Subject Committees and in view of Section 43, the term of two and half years is referable to the office of Chairman of Subject Committee, which is co-terminus with the term of office of President and Vice President. In view of subsection (6) of Section 83 as well as Section 43, once the Chairman is elected/appointed under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83, he shall hold office of Chairman of Subject Committee for two and half years, which is on par with the term of the office of President and Vice President as stipulated in Section 43 of the Act of 1961 and the same cannot be curtailed by exercising power under Section 111 of the Act of 1961 by the Zilla Parishad. However, there is nothing in the Act of 1961 or Rules framed thereunder to demonstrate that allocation of Subject Committee or Committees to the elected Chairman by the Zilla Parishad is either co-terminus with the term of office of Chairmen of Subject Committees, which is two and half years or there is any minimum term prescribed and in absence thereof, the question which we need to answer is whether Zilla Parishad is competent to effect change in allocation of Subject Committees before expiry of period of the office of Chairmen of Subject Committees, which is of two and half years, by exercising power under Section 111 of the Act of 1961. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 111 of the Act of 1961. 15) Section 111 is in Chapter VII of the Act of 1961, which deals with conduct of business of meetings of Zilla Parishad. Sub-section (11) of Section 111 of the Act of 1961 stipulates that no resolution of Zilla Parishad shall normally be modified or cancelled within three months from the date of passing thereof except by a resolution supported by not less than one-half of the number of Councillors present and has been passed at an ordinary meeting, whereof notice as required by sub-section (4) of Section 111 has been given setting forth fully the resolution, which it proposes to modify or cancel at such meeting. It is, therefore, evident that resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad normally should not be modified or cancelled within three months from the date of passing thereof. However, Zilla Parishad after issuing notice as required by subsection (4) of Section 111, can modify or cancel such resolution within the period of three months from its passing provided it is supported by not less than one-half of the number of Councillors present and passed at an ordinary meeting. It clearly shows that Zilla Parishad does have a power to modify or cancel any resolution by following due procedure stipulated in this regard. Sub-section (11) of Section 111 of the Act of 1961 deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Zilla Parishad before modifying or cancelling the resolution of the Zilla Parishad within three months of passing thereof provided it is supported by not less than one-half of the number of Councillors present at such meeting. 16) It will be appropriate now to consider the facts and circumstances involved in the present case in the context of the above referred legal position. In the case in hand, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Subject Committee by the Collector on 2.12.2009 and was placed in-charge of Finance and Works Subject Committee by the Zilla Parishad vide resolution dated 29.12.2009. The President of Zilla Parishad issued the impugned notice dated 17/2/2011 as per provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 111 of the Act of 1961 and convened the meeting on 28/2/2011 to discuss the subject, i.e. change in Subject Committees currently with the Chairmen of Subject Committees and on 28/2/2011, allocation of Subject Committee so far as petitioner is concerned, has been changed by the Zilla Parishad. The respondent no.4, who was elected as Chairman of Subject Committee, was given charge of Finance and Works Committee of which petitioner was the Chairman earlier. The action of Zilla Parishad of issuing impugned notice as well as effecting change in allocation of Subject Committees in the meeting held on 28/2/2011 has been challenged in the present petition on the basic premise that Zilla Parishad has no power, jurisdiction or authority to change the allocation of Subject Committee before expiry of the term of office of Chairman of such Subject Committee, which is two and half years. 17) We are of the view that the challenge raised by the petitioner in view of scheme of provisions of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 is misconceived and cannot be sustained in law. The Chairman of Subject Committee is elected by the Collector by following procedure stipulated under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961. The power exercised by the Collector under this sub-section only extends to electing Chairman of Subject Committee by following procedure stipulated in the said subsection. The said power has no nexus with allocation of Subject Committee or Committees to the elected Chairmen stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 as determined by the Zilla Parishad. It is, therefore, evident that power exercised by the Collector under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 is limited and is exercised by the Collector only to elect Chairmen of Subject Committees. However, once the four Chairmen of Subject Committees are elected by the Collector by exercising power under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961, it is the Zilla Parishad, which has power, jurisdiction and authority to determine which elected Chairman shall be placed in-charge of which Committee or Committees. The Chairman of Subject Committee no doubt holds the said office for two and half years. However, the Zilla Parishad in view of sub-section (11) of Section 111 of the Act of 1961, is empowered to modify or cancel the allocation of Subject Committee by passing another resolution as per procedure stipulated thereunder. 18) In the instant case, the petitioner was elected as Chairman by the Collector on 2/12/2009 and, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 43, he shall hold office of the Chairman of Subject Committee for a period of two and half years. The petitioner was placed in-charge of Subject Committee of Finance and Construction vide Resolution dated 29/12/2009 passed by the Zilla Parishad and in view of provisions of subsection (11) of Section 111 of the Act of 1961, Zilla Parishad does have a power to modify or cancel the same by following due procedure stipulated in Chapter VII of the Act of 1961. The power exercised by the Zilla Parishad under Section 111 of the Act of 1961 is not in conflict with the power exercised by the Collector under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 of the Act of 1961 nor the powers exercised by the Collector and Zilla Parishad in the respective provisions of the Act are overlapping. The powers exercised by the Collector and Zilla Parishad under sub-section (1-A) of Section 83 and Section 111 of the Act of 1961 respectively are completely distinct and different and are exercised by these Authorities in entirely different situations. Changing the allocation of Subject Committee by exercising power under sub-section (11) of Section 111 by the Zilla Parishad has nothing to do with the term of office of Chairman of Subject Committee and, therefore, it does not amount to curtailing the tenure of office of Chairman of Subject Committee, which is of two and half years and, therefore, the contentions canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, for the reasons stated hereinabove, suffer from lack of merit and hence, the same are rejected. 19) It is no doubt true that Zilla Parishad though has a power under Section 111(11) of the Act of 1961 to change allocation of Subject Committee before expiry of the term of the office of Chairman, which is two and half years, however, such power must not be exercised arbitrarily or with oblique motive and shall necessarily be exercised in the larger public interest and must be free from malice. 20) In the instant case, there is no challenge to the procedure adopted by the Zilla Parishad while passing Resolution dated 28/2/2011 and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into this aspect. 21) For the reasons stated hereinabove, we answer the issue framed in para (10) in affirmative. The petition is misconceived and, therefore, the same is dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs.