(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1635 OF 1994 Shri Tulja Bhawani Highway Service, through its Proprietor, Naldurg, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Bombay - 400 032. 2. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. 4. The Municipal Council, Naldurg, through its Chief Officer, Naldurg, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. C.G. Madkholkar, Advocate, for the petitioner (Absent). Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. (2) Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Collector, Osmanabad, dated 26th May 1994, thereby suspending the effect and operation of the resolutions passed by the respondent / Municipal Council, dated 22nd February 1990 and 30th March 1994. 2. By the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, the Municipal Council had granted exemption to the petitioner from payment of octroi duty on the goods imported by him i.e. oil, petrol, diesel, etc. The Collector in exercise of powers under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, found that the said resolution was not in the interest of the Council and, therefore, directed suspension thereof. (3) 3. From the perusal of the order passed by the Collector, is is seen that the Collector has given detail reasons as to how the resolutions were against the interest of the Municipal Council. It can also be seen that Section 308 of the said Act empowers the Collector to pass an order of the nature that has been passed by him. 4. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1635