-: 1 :- W.P. 5205/10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5205 OF 2010 Tukaram Ganpat Kale and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Ankush Kondiba Jadhav & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam for respondent no.1. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, GP for respondent no.3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 12, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, learned G.P. for respondent no.3. 2. By the impugned order, Respondent no.3 Collector allowed respondent no.1’s application to correct typographical mistakes in the reference petition. The said reference petition is filed by respondent no. 1 under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 [for short “the said Rules”] to disqualify the petitioners. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : srp -: 2 :- W.P. 5205/10. The election to the office of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of respondent no.2 was declared by respondent no.3 on 19th November 2009. The election was scheduled to take place on 27th November 2009. In the said election, petitioner no.1 was elected as Chairman by majority of 8:6, defeating respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 thereafter on 11th December 2009 filed reference petition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 [for short “the said Act”] and the said Rules being Reference Petition No.52 of 2009 seeking to disqualify the petitioners to be the councillors. In short, it is the case of respondent no.1 that he and petitioner nos.1 to 3 belong to the Indian National Congress and the petitioners have voted against the whip issued by him as a leader of the party. In the said petition, respondent no.1 filed an application on 1st June 2010 for correction of typographical mistakes. The date of party meeting is 13th March 2007, however, it is wrongly typed as 12th March 2007. The Form No.2B is wrongly typed as Form No.2A in paragraph no. 2 on page no.4. This application was opposed by the petitioners on the various grounds and respondent no.3 Collector after hearing both parties allowed the said application by an order which is impugned in the petition. 4. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioners taking -: 3 :- W.P. 5205/10. exception to the impugned order submitted that respondent no.3 Collector has no jurisdiction to grant amendment to the petition filed by respondent no.1 under Rule 6 of the said Rules inasmuch as the Collector is persona designate and secondly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be made applicable to the proceedings under the said Act. He submitted that even assuming that the C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings under the said Act, the Collector in view of proviso to Order- VI Rule-17 of the CPC has not recorded his satisfaction. In the circumstances, he claimed that the impugned order is illegal perse, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. He relied upon two judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hariharrao V. Bhoiskar & Ors v/s. Datta Anandrao Pawar and ors reported in 2005(Supp.) B.C.R. 759 and Shahinara Salim v. BMC reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 940 and also on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi v/s. The Speaker and ors reported in AIR-1993 SC 1873. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the said Act and said Rules cannot be said to be complete Code in itself and therefore the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings under the said Act and said Rules. He further submitted that no time limit to file reference is prescribed and therefore the -: 4 :- W.P. 5205/10. correction of typographical errors cannot be objected. He relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Vithal Raut v/s. Gangadhar Dilip Sopal reported in 2000(4) B.C.R. 26 and another decision of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Manoj Bansilal Biyani v/s. Sameer Krishnandhan Kart & Anr reported in 2009(5) B.C.R. 753. 6. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, learned Government Pleader supported the impunged order. He submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order especially when the same is interim. He relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the matter of D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration [1983 (4) SCC 293]. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order alongwith the decisions cited by the learned counsel, I find no merit in the petition. Respondent no.1 by filing an application sought to correct two typographical mistakes. The first mistake is regarding the date of party meeting, which is wrongly typed as 12th March 2007 instead of 13th March 2007. The second mistake is that Form No.2B is incorrectly typed as From No.2A. 8. The similar question fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Raut’s case (supra). -: 5 :- W.P. 5205/10. In that case, the chamber summons was taken out in election petition for amendment of the election petition by correcting the name of respondent no.1 therein as Dilip Gangadhar Sopal instead of Gangadhar Dilip Sopal in the cause title of petition and other consequential amendments arising therefrom. The learned Single Judge relying upon judgment of the Apex Court in Gore Lal Shakya v. Maharaj Singh Yadav and Ors [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 407], allowed the petitioner therein to amend the petition by correcting the name of first respondent therein as Dilip Gangadhar Sopal instead of Gangadhar Dilip Sopal. The learned Single Judge held that the typographical mistake which is insignificant, deserves to be rectified by amending the petition. Another Single Judge in Manoj Biyani’s case (supra) was considering the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the said Rules. In this case, it was held that the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the said Rules are directory, and therefore verification of the Annexures to the petition in accordance with the C.P.C. is not mandatory. It was further held that the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may permit the rectification of curable defects. If the ratio of these judgments is taken into consideration, then in my opinion respondent no.1’s application for correction of typographical errors is maintainable and respondent no.3 - Collector has rightly allowed the same. 9. Now, let us consider the decision of the learned Single Judge in -: 6 :- W.P. 5205/10. Hariharrao’s case (supra). One of the issues in that case was whether the Collector has jurisdiction to impleadment of party to the dispute. This issue was answered in the negative. The question whether the CPC is applicable or not to the proceedings under the said Act was not under consideration in this case. The said decision, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In Shahinara Salim v. BMC reported in 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 940 the question which fell for consideration was whether the interim relief can be granted in an election petition. Learned Single Judge in the absence of any specific provision under section 33 of the BMC Act held that the election Court has no power to grant interim reliefs. The ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Apex Court in Dr. Kashinath’s case (supra) was considering the question whether the Speaker of Assembly has power of review in a proceeding for disqualification of a member of legislative assembly. This question was ultimately answered in the negative. In a case in hand, the question is whether the typographical errors can be corrected and therefore the decision of the Apex Court is also not applicable to the present case. 11. Since I have already, on the basis of the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court found that the typographical errors can be -: 7 :- W.P. 5205/10. corrected and respondent no.3 – Collector has correctly passed the impugned order, the ratio of decision in D.P. Maheshwari’s case (supra) need not be discussed. 12. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that the said Rules does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing disqualification petition under Rule-6 of the said Rules. Respondent no.1 can withdraw the petition and file afresh one so as to cure the defect in reference petition. If this can be done, then in my view, there is no reason why the defects or typographical errors cannot allowed to be curred/corrected. Taking overall view of the circumstances, I find no merit in the petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)