1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 793 OF 2010 (Bhimrao Laxman Nagrale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 15, 2010. Heard Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The short contention of the petitioner is, grievance made by him is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Javed Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 (2) Mh. L.J. 925. He states that the petitioner has been elected in December 2006 as Ward Member and after about 11 months, Respondent No. 4 sought his disqualification alleging that the petitioner is a encroacher. Respondent No. 2 – Collector, has allowed that application but then in the process has recorded a finding that encroachment was prior to March 2006. In this situation, as statutory remedy of appeal is available, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Government which has been heard by the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister directed the 2 Deputy Secretary to stay the order of the Collector during the pendency of appeal but then the Deputy Secretary has refused to implement that order. The learned AGP as also Kulkarni, learned counsel contend that if there is any order in writing of stay by the Hon’ble Minister, the petitioner has to take further appropriate steps in the matter and writ petition is not the proper remedy. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel contends that the petitioner is seeking quashing of adverse order passed by the Collector by ignoring the remedy of appeal resorted to by him. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel states that at this stage, Respondent No. 3 is not involved in any way and role of Respondent No. 3 begins only after vacancy is declared. Prima facie, the perusal of order of the Collector shows a finding that the petitioner has on 31.3.2006 accepted his encroachment. The elections have taken place thereafter. In this situation, the statement made by the petitioner on oath that there was direction by the Hon’ble Minister to grant stay and Deputy Secretary has not issued that order, cannot be disbelieved. However, it is also necessary for this Court to record a finding in this respect as appeal is pending and Respondent No. 1 or other competent authority in this respect can consider that appeal expeditiously. The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 – Collector needs to be stayed during the pendency of appeal. 3 Accordingly, the order passed by Respondent No. 2 – Collector on 19.01.2010 is hereby stayed during the pendency of appeal filed by the petitioner before Respondent No.1. The said appeal be considered and decided as early as possible and in any case by 31st July 2010. The parties to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 10th May 2010 and to abide by his further directions in the matter. All contentions raised by the parties are kept open for consideration by the authority deciding the appeal. This Court has not recorded any finding and observations made above are only to support the grant of interim order in the matter. The authorities are free to consider the controversy independently uninfluenced by those observations. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.