1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Hon for Petitioner, Advocate Shri Deshpande for Respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 2. By inviting attention to provisions of Rule 6 Subrule (3) and Rule 3 Subrule (1) and (2) of Maharashtra Local Authority Member's Disqualification Rules, 1987 framed under The Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualifcation Act, 1986 Shri Hon has argued that petition for disqualification has not been verified in accordance with law and documents filed with it, or mentioned in it, have also not been verified accordingly. He points out that copy of C.D. has been delivered to counsel representing petitioners at the time of arguments on preliminary objection raised by them. He also draws attention to various objections raised before the Collector in para 4 of the application 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. preferred raising preliminary objections. Lastly by keeping reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of "Hariharrao Vishwanathrao Bhosikar and others V/s Datta Anandrao Pawar and others" reported in 2005 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 759, learned counsel states that the procedure prescribed is mandatory and as the procedure is not fulfilled, the petition needs to be allowed. He has further urged that, verification, at this stage, as limitation for filing application for disqualification is long over and the indirect effect of such permission will be extending the period of limitation. 3. Shri Deshmukh on the other hand has relied upon judgment of Honourable Apex Court in the case of "Kedar Shashikant Deshpande etc. etc. V/s Bhor Municipal Council and others etc. etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 10452-10457 of 2010 - arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7477-7482 of 2010] and in case 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. of "Chandrakant S/o Gajananrao Pise and others V/s Collector, Nagpur and others" reported in 2010 (1) Mah.L.J. 268, to urge that Court has taken consistent view that if there are any defects of present nature, the same can be allowed to be rectified and disqualification petition cannot be dismissed straighway. According to learned counsel, verification as done, is in accordance with law and documents are also duly verified. Copy of C.D. was filed along with disqualification petition and office of Collector did not serve it upon the respondents. He points out that copy has been served upon the advocate representing the respondents at the time of hearing. 4. The lacunae pointed out are mostly procedural. Perusal of verification as appearing at the end of disqualification petition, shows that contents therein are stated to be based on personal knowledge and 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. also on record. The records on which those statements are based, are not disclosed in the verification. Similarly, the contents of para Nos.5 and 6 are stated to be true as per personal knowledge and also as per information furnished to him. The inconsistency, therefore, is apparent. What part is true to personal knowledge and what part is correct as per information received, has not been separately disclosed. Names of informants or source of information is also not disclosed. 5. The contention is even the copies of documents are not verified as contemplated by the above mentioned Rules. However, those documents or their copies are not filed along with the petition. 6. In the light of judgment quoted (supra) it is apparent that for such procedural lapses the disqualification petition cannot be dismissed and petitioner needs to be given 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10958 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. an opportunity to correct the errors. Hence, the Respondent No.2 is given liberty to file proper verification in support of his disqualification petition and also to verify documents filed along with petition in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2010 is modified to that extent. If the petition completes the process of verification within two weeks from today, office of Collector shall proceed further with adjudication of the controversy on merits. If the compliance is not effected, the disqualification petition shall stand dismissed automatically. The writ petition is, thus, partly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:25/01/2011. ans/10958