Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally with consent by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Perused provisions of Section 20 of Sub-section 4 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 2012. 3. The Standing Committee of Corporation consists of 16 persons and as per that provision, 8 have to be elected every year in place of 8 members who retire annually. The meeting held on 2.2.2013 for that purpose was the first meeting after Section 20 and above scheme of retirement by rotation came into force. To determine, who should be the 8 persons to retire in first year, Section 20 of Sub-section 4, contemplates election of those 8 Members by drawing lots. The manner thereof is to be decided by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. 4. The counsel for petitioners submits that though accordingly 8 chits having word ‘Kayam’ (to continue) and 8 chits having word ‘Nivrutta’ (to retire), were prepared, while drawing lots, all male members have picked up the chits from container first till 13th persons viz. Smt. Pragati Ajay Patil picked up the chit. By the time, turn of petitioner No.1 came picture became clear and all 8 persons to continue were already known and 3 chits with word ‘Nivrutta’ were only left in container. According to the learned counsel, this is not in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. All 3 persons including petitioner No.1 who were still to lift those chits, knew in advance that they have to retire. Thus, retirement of last 3 persons viz. Saroj Raju Bahadure, Alka Dalal and Harshala Sanjay Jaiswal, was forced upon them by the other members and they have been denied equal opportunity. Our attention is also invited to the fact that petitioner No.1 then attempted to raise an objection, but that objection has not been properly recorded or looked into. 5. Shri Kaptan, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 7, as also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3, submit that procedure was evolved with consent of all. Sub-section 4 of Section 20 permits drawing of lots and accordingly 16 chits were placed in container. 5. Shri Kaptan, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 7, as also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3, submit that procedure was evolved with consent of all. Sub-section 4 of Section 20 permits drawing of lots and accordingly 16 chits were placed in container. Manner of taking out chits or how those chits should be drawn, was discussed in meeting and it was decided that first Chairman of the Standing Committee should draw the first chit and thereafter person sitting next to him should draw it. Accordingly, in this manner, the drawal of chits has proceeded further. As all male members sit together as per old practice, first male member drew the chits and thereafter the female members started drawing chits. The person at Sr.No.10 viz. Bhagyashri Ganesh Kantode was first lady to draw the chit as she was sitting first after the last male member. It is submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the manner and the lots have been drawn impartially. 6. Shri Patil, learned counsel, in reply arguments submits that retirement of democratically elected representative by such system, is itself highly objectionable and unsustainable. His contention is merely by making reference to practise of male members sitting together, the drawing of lots or procedure adopted cannot be justified. He further attempts to submit that the manner of drawing chits could not have been left to the decision of the Chairman of the Standing Committee. 7. We have perused the proceedings on 2.2.2013 as filed along with reply affidavit. There is no challenge to the minutes and events as recorded therein. The proceedings show that total 16 chits were prepared and all were placed in a transparent container. Eight chits were for ‘continuation’ while remaining eight were for ‘retirement’. Then members were consulted as to how the chits should be drawn and it was decided that the Chairman should draw the chit first and then person sitting to him should lift it. The further drawal was to proceed in same order. It is, therefore, apparent that manner of drawing chits has not been decided by the Chairman and it was decided by the members of the Sanding Committee including present petitioners. As Standing Committee consists of total 16 members and 8 to retire were to be ascertained, 8 chits carried word ‘retire’. The further drawal was to proceed in same order. It is, therefore, apparent that manner of drawing chits has not been decided by the Chairman and it was decided by the members of the Sanding Committee including present petitioners. As Standing Committee consists of total 16 members and 8 to retire were to be ascertained, 8 chits carried word ‘retire’. It was further known in advance that the persons lifting those chits would stand retired. This mode of determining the retiring member has been prescribed by the Legislature as it was first year after coming into force of Section 20 and such scheme. In subsequent years, the Standing Committee Members with longest tenure are to retire. Thus, this is only instance when the drawal of lots was required to be resorted to. In this situation, preparation of 16 chits and giving equal opportunity to each member to draw the same cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. Unanimous decision requiring male members to draw the chit first also cannot introduce any arbitrariness and is not sufficient to vitiate the “draw”. 8. Petitioner No.1 got apprehensive only because she found that 3 chits left in the container were all carrying remark “to retire”. Had the chits been separately kept in sealed envelope and such envelops were permitted to be opened only after last member has collected his/her envelop or result was made known only after last chit is drawn, this contingency would not have arisen. However, the procedure was devised with consent of all and it cannot, therefore, be said that petitioner No.1 was not given proper opportunity. Petitioner No.2 is the person who has drawn chit at Sr. No.2 i.e. immediately after the Chairman and he also got a chit with remark ‘to retire’. This itself militates with argument of any hostile treatment or unequal opportunity. The provisions of Section 20(4) are not challenged and even otherwise, manner of drawing lots cannot be viewed as arbitrary. Said arrangement in Section 20(4) gives equal opportunity to all and discretion is conferred upon the Chairman to work out finer details of that system. The details need to maintain transparency in the process. In facts before us, that intention is not defeated. 9. In this situation, we find no substance in challenge warranting interference. Petition is rejected. No costs.