1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8246 OF 2009 Govind s/o Eaknath Sirole, Age: 46 years, Occ: Trade & Social Worker, R/o. Manbhhuvan Line, Parola, District Jalgaon. .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3620 OF 2010 ... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P.for respondent No.1. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2010 2 PER COURT : Heard. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not be disqualified for six years in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 55-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short "The Act of 1965"). Counsel for the appellant submits that proper hearing was not accorded before passing the impugned order. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Rameshchandra s/o Shankarlal Saboo (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 892. Relevant portions of the order passed by the learned Single Judge were also referred alongwith the documents, like show cause notice and the reply filed by the appellant. 2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing 3 for respondent No. 2 has referred to the documents at Pages 74 to 78 of the paper book, in support of submission that a person like President of Municipal Council should not indulge in the activities for which the State constrained to issue show cause notice and resultantly after considering the record, passed order of removal and disqualification. Counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that show cause notice was issued under Section 55-A and 55-B of the Act of 1965. 3. Mr. V.H. Dighe, learned A.G.P. has supported the impugned order. In the submissions of the A.G.P., serious irregularities were noticed and therefore, the impugned order was passed, based on the material placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the ground of not providing opportunity of hearing and faulty show cause notice has been taken for the first time. 4 4. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit in reply today. It is contended by respondent No. 2 in the reply that the Election Commission has already finalized the voters list for electing a Councillor against the seat vacated by the petitioner. It transpires from the reply that further stages of the election have been commenced. The deponent states that the nominations are also being filed. 5. We have perused the record including the impugned order. We are not convinced with the submissions that the appellant could not have been disqualified for want of notice under Section 55-B of the Act of 1965. Considering the fact that the Writ Petition is already admitted by the learned Single Judge and liberty to move for early hearing is already been granted, we are not inclined to entertain this 5 appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the light of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application and the same is also dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.) sut/MAR10/lpa65.10