1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2009 against WRIT PETITION NO. 5239 OF 2009 Vijay s/o. Bansi Patil, age 60 years, occ. social work, R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Shahada, taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar. - - - - Appellant versus 1. Rajendra Mihilal Agrawal, age 42 years, occ. business, 2. Mohamad Riyaz Mohd. Shaif Shikalkar, age 47 years, occ. business, 3. Raju Shivdas Thakre, age 42 years, occu. business, All residents of Shahada, taluka Shahada, district Nandurbar. 4. The Collector, Nandurbar. 5. Shahada Municipal Council, Shahada, taluka Shahada, district Nandurbar through its Chief Officer. - - - - Respondents Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for respondents Nos.2 and 3. 2 Shri R. P. Phatke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.4. Shri S. V. Gangapurwala, Advocate holding for Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.5. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 29th September 2009 ORAL ORDER [ B. R. GAVAI, J. ] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. By way of present appeal, appellant challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 11-8-2009 vide which learned Single Judge while admitting the petition filed by Respondents Nos.1 to 3 has granted interim relief thereby staying proceedings before the Collector, Nandurbar. The petitioner, who claims to be the leader of one Shahar Vikas Aghadi in Shahada Municipal Council, had filed a petition before the Collector for declaring respondents Nos.1 to 3 as disqualified on the ground that they have disobeyed the whip of the party. 3. It appears that respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed preliminary objection. The same was rejected by the Collector, Nandurbar vide 3 order dated 5-8-2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 have filed a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 5239 of 2009. The said petition is admitted and interim relief is granted therein. 4. It appears that learned Single Judge has observed in para 6 that the respondent No.2 (the Collector) without considering the application filed by the petitioners on 5-8-2009 and without giving the reasons dismissed the same. It is a settled law that every quasi order has to be a speaking order. In that view of the matter, the parties agree that it would be in the interest of justice that instead of keeping the writ petition and also appeal pending before this Court, the same can be disposed of by directing to the Collector, Nandurbar to decide the objection petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein afresh by giving adequate reasons in support of his order. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions :- I. The order dated 5-8-2009 passed by the Collector, Nandurbar rejecting the objection petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is quashed and set aside. 4 II. The Collector, Nandurbar is directed to decide the objection petition of respondents Nos.1 to 3 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.1 to 3. Needless to state that while deciding the objection petition, the Collector, Nandurbar, would give reasons in support of whatever order he may pass on the said objection. 5. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same also stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/lpa15509