1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.148 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5121 OF 2009 ... Tanaji Balu Powar ...Appellant v/s. Vasant Appaso Mali & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.M.L.Patil for the Appellant. Mr.T.S.Ingale for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,& R.S.MOHITE, JJ DATED: 16 th July, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Appellant has made a complaint that the structure of Respondent No.1, who is elected as Councilor of Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, is unauthorised. The proceedings were initiated before the Collector on the basis of the report submitted by an authority that the structure 2 of the Respondent No.1 is unauthorised. In those proceedings the Respondent No.1 applied before the Collector for permission to cross- examine the person who has submitted the report saying that the structure is unauthorised. The Collector did not grant that permission. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed before this Court by Respondent No. 1. That Writ petition has been allowed. The present appeal is against that order. 2. What has been done by the learned single Judge is that the Respondent No.1 has ben given an opportunity to cross-examine the person who has submitted the report saying that the structure of Respondent No.1 is unauthorised. This has been done by the learned single Judge because if finding recorded by the Collector that the structure of the Respondent No.1 is unauthorised that 3 would result in his removal from the elected office. The learned single Judge has held that as the order has drastic consequence, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Respondent No.1 should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the person who has submitted the report. 3. The Appellant submits that the learned single Judge has committed an error because the inquiry which is to be made is a summary inquiry and it does not contemplate cross-examine of the witness. He also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/s. Tulsiram Patel 1985, (3) SCC, 398 to submit that as the law does not provide for a right of cross- examination of the witness being given, the learned single Judge should not have done it. 4 4. In our opinion, unless we are pointed out the provisions in the law which prohibits cross-examination of the witness, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned single Judge because she has granted opportunity to the Respondent No. 1 to cross-examine the witness who says that the structure is unauthorised. That will help in establishing the authenticity of the report. In our opinion, therefore, it is not a fit case where this court should interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Even the other directions issued for permission to cross-examine the witness, in our opinion, is in the interest of justice. Appeal disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)