1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.443 OF 2002 Nivrutti Sopan Waghmode ..Petitioner Vs. The Collector, Nashik & Ors. ..Respondents Shri P.N.Joshi for the Petitioner Shri M.S.Karnik for Respondent No.2 Shri A.I.Patel AGP for Respondent No.1 & 4 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 10th June, 2010 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 27-12-2009 passed by the Collector, Nashik in exercise of the power under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 (for brevities sake referred to as the said Act). 2. By the said order, the resolution by the Standing Committee of respondent No.1 of allotting 2 the plot of land to the petitioner for putting up a shed to carry out his business of stamp vendor was stayed by the Collector. 3. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment with elaborate facts, suffice it to say that under Section 308(2) of the said Act, it is necessary for the Collector to form his own opinion as to why a particular resolution passed by the Municipal Council warrants action under Section 308 of the said Act. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that no such reasons have been mentioned by the Collector in the said order. The Collector has merely referred to the reference made by the Chief officer of the Municipal Council Yeola, stating that the resolution passed by the Standing Committee is illegal. A reading of Section 308 of the said Act postulates that the Collector has to form his own opinion as to why interdiction under Section 308 is warranted against the resolution of 3 the Council. The reasons have to find place in the order as the order has to be then communicated to the Council containing the said reasons. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2003(3)Bom.C.R. page 550 in the matter of Sanjay Govind Sapkal & ors. Vs. Collector of Dhule & ors. to buttress his submission as regards the interpretation of Section 308 of the said Act. 5. In the instant case as indicated above, the Collector has merely reproduced the reference made by the Chief Officer, without satisfying himself as to why an interdiction under Section 308 of the said Act is warranted. On the said limited ground, therefore, we are required to set aside the impugned order dated 27-12-2001 and remand the matter back to the Collector, Nashik for a de-novo consideration. On such remand, the Collector would be well advised to act in terms of Section 308 of 4 the said Act by citing detailed reasons as to why the resolution is required to be stayed. 6. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to appear before the Collector on 28-6-2010 at 11.00 a.m. The learned AGP to inform the Collector of this development. The Collector, thereafter to dispose of the said proceeding within a period of four weeks from 28-6-2010. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs. 7. In the event the Collector decides to issue an order under Section 308 of the said act, the action against the petitioners may not be taken for a period of two weeks of the passing of the said order. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)