(1) WP 4678.2010+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4678 OF 2010 Ravindra S/o Kailash Upadhye Petitioner VERSUS Ravindra S/o Bhaskar Deshmukh and ors. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4679 OF 2010 Rehnuma Rahim Pinjari Petitioner VERSUS Ravindra S/o Bhaskar Deshmukh and others Respondents ..... Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. None present for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 though served ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.3. Though served, the respondents 1 and 2 are absent. 2. The petitioners were disqualified by the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Collector, Dhule. They have been disqualified on the (2) WP 4678.2010+1 ground that they did not follow the directions issued under the Whip dated 21.6.2009 issued by the competent leaders of the Aghadi. 3. Perusal of the record and proceedings would indicate that the petitioners had raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the applications filed by the respondent no.1, whereby declaration about disqualification of the petitioners was sought. What appears from the record is that the said application dated 1.9.2009 and also application dated 6.11.2009 were not duly considered. It is the contention of the petitioners that instead of holding preliminary hearing on such applications, the learned Collector rendered the final decision vide the impugned judgment. The Roznama does not show that opportunity of final hearing was given to the petitioners in the proceedings. The entries in the Roznama are vague as regards the hearing on merits. In this view of the matter, both the impugned judgments are required to be interferred with. 4. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside. The matters are remanded to the learned (3) WP 4678.2010+1 Collector, Dhule with direction to decide the dispute afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and on merits of the matter, including the preliminary objection. It is made clear that the petitioners be not heard on preliminary objections at the first stage and both the hearings shall be simultaneously taken up so as to avoid any further delay in the decision of the matter. The petitioners shall advance the submissions on the preliminary objections as well as on merits before the learned Collector on the scheduled date of hearing. The parties to appear before the learned Collector on 27.01.2011 and the learned Collector may then fix a date of hearing on merits of the preliminary objections as well as the disqualification issue and, thereafter shall dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the law. It is made clear that no opinion on merits is expressed in this order. It is further made clear that the petitioners will not be eligible and entitled to participate in the proceedings of the Municipal Council until the disputes are finally decided though they will be entitled to personally appear in the meetings of the (4) WP 4678.2010+1 Municipal Council but they will not be entitled to cast their votes or to express their opinion on any subject on the Agenda of such meetings. 5. Both the Petitions are disposed of. No costs. The proceedings shall be immediately remitted to the Collector by the learned A.G.P. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp