1wp-971-10 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.971/2010 Kedar Shashikant Deshpande ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors ..Respondents. Mr Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel with Mr S.R.Borulkar i/b Mr M.A.Patil, for the petitioner. Mr L.M.Acharya with Mr Sathyam Acharya and Ram Shekhawat for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr Milind More with H.B.Takke, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr P.P.Kakade, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune holding that the petitioner is disqualified to be a member of Respondent No.4 Bhor, Municipal Council, Taluka Bhor, District 2wp-971-10 Pune. A petition under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (henceforth referred to as Disqualification Act ) was filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner alleging that he is disqualified to be a member of the Council under the Disqualification Act. That challenge has been upheld and the petitioner is declared as disqualified. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made three submissions in support of his challenge to the order. Firstly, that in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules,1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Disqualification Rules ) framed under the Disqualification Act, the annextures to the petition filed by Respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking order of disqualification against the petitioner were not verified by them as required by sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6. They were permitted to verify annextures by the Collector without granting petitioner an opportunity of being heard on the application filed by the petitioner for that purpose. The second ground on which the impugned order is challenged, is that the article of charges which are required to be served on the present petitioner as per the Rules do not comply with the requirement of the rule; and the third challenge is that by one petition the order of 3wp-971-10 disqualification was sought against six Councillors. According to the learned counsel, individual petition is required to be filed for each Councillor seeking order of disqualification. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that as per the Rules framed under the Act a petition filed under the Act and the annextures are required to be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings. It is also true that the annextures were not verified by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who had filed the petition, as required by the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules. It appears that matter was fixed before the Collector on 8.1.2010. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the original petitioners. At the request of the respondent matter was adjourned to 12.1.2010. It appears that thereafter Advocate appearing for the original petitioners appeared before the Collector and sought his permission to verify the annextures and that permission was granted. Thus, it can be taken as established fact that initially the annextures were not verified as required by the provisions of the Disqualification Rules and they were permitted to be verified behind the back of the present petitioner. The question, therefore, that arises is, whether the requirement of sub rule 4wp-971-10 (4) of Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules that the annextures should be verified by the petitioner as required by the provisions of the C.P.C., is a mandatory requirement or a directory requirement. It appears that the same question has been decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case of Dr Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others 2004 AIR SCW 6278. The Supreme Court, while considering identical provisions of the Rules framed under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, has held that the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the Disqualification Rules which are identical to the Rules 6 and 7 of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution are not mandatory and they are directory and mere non compliance with the requirement does not render the petition liable to be dismissed without inquiry. In our opinion, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court we cannot set aside the impugned order merely because the annextures to the petition were not initially verified and they were permitted to be verified behind the back of the petitioner. In our opinion, it is merely a technical flaw which will not vitiate the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin and anr vs. State of Maharashtra and ors 2007 (6) ALL MR 14 which holds that the provisions of rules 6 and 7 are mandatory. We have 5wp-971-10 perused this judgment. The judgment does not consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr Mahachandra Prasad (cited supra). In our opinion, therefore, as the judgment of the Supreme Court was already in the field on identical provisions of law and as judgment was rendered by the Division Bench without even referring to that judgment, in our opinion, we will not be justified on relying that judgment. 4. So far as the second submission is concerned, it is admitted position that the article of charge as required by the Rules was actually prepared and served on the petitioner on 11.1.2010 before the matter was heard by the Collector and at the hearing no grievance was made in relation to the article of charge that either the article of charge does not comply with the rule or the requirement of natural justice. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, a challenge now raised is clearly an after thought. So far as the third challenge is concerned that there should have been a separate petition filed, in our opinion, that also cannot be accepted because the rules also do not provide for filing of a separate petition. If the cause of action and the facts constituting are the same, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the original petitioner filing a single petition. 6wp-971-10 5. Thus, we do not find any substance in the petition. It is hereby rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI,J)