1 wp1233.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1233 OF 2009 Nishikant Narayan Bhojane .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents. Mr. R.D. Suryavanshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Asif Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.M. Railkar for Respondent No.4. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1. General Elections of the Chiplun Municipal Council were held on 20-11-2006 and 24 Councilors came to be elected. On 10-12-2006 the party Meeting of Shivsena was held and respondent No.5 was elected as a party leader in the Council. On 14-12-2006 the party meeting of Nationalist Congress Party was held and Shri Rajesh Suresh Kadam was elected party leader in the Council. On 15-12-2006 the party meeting of Indian National Congress was held and respondent No.11 was elected as the party leader in the Council. Three political parties namely, Shiv Sena, Indian National Congress and Bhartiya Janta Party had along with 4 independent Councilors formed a coalition called Janseva Aghadi. The same decision was intimated 2 wp1233.09.sxw to the Collector on 23-12-2006 but the Aghadi was not registered. On 26-12-2006 the Collector called a special meeting for the election of committees and he recognized the Janseva Aghadi. Objections were taken by the petitioner and other Councilors that the Janseva Aghadi was not registered and therefore the Aghadi could not have been invited to nominate their members on different committees. On 27-12-2007, similar complaints were lodged but were rejected by the Collector. Hence the petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 r/w Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules 1987, framed under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act 1986. By his order dated 5-1-2009, the Divisional Commissioner of Konkan Division held that the revision was not maintainable and it was dismissed. 2. It appears that during the pendency of this petition there was further split in the Janseva Aghadi and therefore, Shri Mahadeo @ Bala Anant Kadam filed an application before the Collector on 2-7-2009 praying for a declaration that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 therein may be declared disqualified. The Collector Ratnagiri heard the said application and by his order dated 31-12-2009 held that so long as the instant petition is pending before the High Court, the application filed by Shri Mahadeo @ Bala Anant Kadam 3 wp1233.09.sxw could not be adjudicated upon and therefore, the said applicant was granted liberty to approach this Court. 3. The affidavit in reply field by the District Planning Officer, Ratnagiri states that the Aghadi was formed on 22-12-2006 and intimation to the same effect was given to the Collector on 23-12-2006 by way of a letter sent by all the elected Aghadi members along with affidavits in form No.III as required under Rule 4(1) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules 1987. However, the said affidavits did not disclose the name of the Aghadi i.e "Janseva Aghadi" and therefore, the affiant states that such procedural lapse under Section 3 of the Disqualification Act 1986 r/w Rule 10 of the Disqualification Rules provides penalty of conviction and there is no provision stating that the formation of the Aghadi will be declared illegal. However. the order passed by the collector does not deal with the application on merits and the affidavit filed by the District Planning Officer has therefore to be ignored. All these issues are required to be adjudicated upon by the Collector Ratnagiri and he could not do so on account of the pendency of this petition. 4. Hence, Mr. Suryavanshi seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Collector so that the application could be heard along with the application filed by respondent No.5 and decided on merits. 4 wp1233.09.sxw 5. Leave granted and the petition is disposed off with liberty to submit an application before the Collector Ratnagiri. We set aside the order passed by the Collector on 31-12-2009 and restore the application filed by the respondent No.5 to the file. If the petitioner files his application within a period of 2 weeks from today, both the applications i.e. application of the petitioner as well as the application of respondent No.5 shall be heard and decided by the Collector as per law and after hearing all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30-11-2010. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)