wp8478group.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8478 OF 2010 Shubhani Pradhan Mali .. Petitioner versus Ashokrao B. Arage & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8476 OF 2010 Shakuntala K. Patil .. Petitioner versus Ashokrao B. Arage & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8473 OF 2010 Tanaji Balu Powar .. Petitioner versus Ashokrao B. Arage & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8475 OF 2010 Shahjahan B. Mujawar .. Petitioner versus Ashokrao B. Arage & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.8481 OF 2010 Sanjay J. Awale .. Petitioner versus Ashokrao B. Arage & Ors .. Respondents wp8478group.doc 2 Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioners. Mr.Surel S. Shah for respondent No.1. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 30th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . These writ petitions challenge the orders on preliminary issues and particularly on the maintainability of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Legal Authorities Disqualification Act, 1987 read with the Rules. 2 Mr.Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions finds fault with the preliminary finding rendered by the Collector that the applications for disqualification proceed to allege that the present petitioners are members of the Indian National Congress and it is that party which was elected in power and which continued to be recognised as such. Inviting my wp8478group.doc 3 attention to the pleadings, Mr.Jahagirdar submits that the case of the original applicants is that each of the elected candidate/councillor and particularly the petitioners before this Court are members of Ichalkaranji Nagarpalika Party (Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress). Therefore to say that the petitioners belong to the Indian National Congress and have been proceeded as such, is a finding contrary to the pleadings. That is how the parties understood the pleading and the controversy. In such circumstances, the Collector has failed to apply his mind and rendered a finding not consistent with the pleadings before him. 3 There are several other objections to the petitions for disqualification and over-ruling of these objections has greatly prejudiced the petitioners. However, the objection highlighted above goes to the root of the case and, therefore, these petitions be admitted and taken up for hearing. 4 I am of the opinion that at this preliminary stage, there is no warrant for interference in writ jurisdiction. The main proceedings for disqualification of the petitioners are pending. wp8478group.doc 4 Certain applications were filed raising preliminary objections and which preliminary objections have been over-ruled by the Collector. At this stage, there is no prejudice, inasmuch as the petitioners are not held to be disqualified, as this finding can be rendered at the conclusion of the proceedings. The parties have to be given full opportunity in terms of the Rules to place such material as is permissible in law in support of their contentions and version and that stage has not reached yet. Further, even oral arguments on merits can be canvassed which will be duly considered. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioners have no opportunity to raise appropriate pleas in support of their contentions on maintainability of the applications. They can raise such pleas including those forming part of these petitions and I have no doubt in my mind that the Collector will duly consider them and will pass final orders in accordance with law. Needless to further state that if the final orders in the proceedings are adverse to the petitioners, then, while challenging them, they can raise all pleas on the issue of maintainability of the proceedings and the rejection of the preliminary objections by the Collector. All contentions in that behalf as well are kept open. With these wp8478group.doc 5 clarifications, I do not see there is any reason to interfere at this stage. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed off. Ad-interim order to stand vacated. The Collector to endeavour to dispose off the main matter within a period of two months from today. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)