1 wp 7905.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7905 OF 2011 1. Kiran S/o Narhari Wattamwar, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Business, 2. Sharad S/o Namdeo Pawar, Age : 29 Years, Occu. : Business, 3. Chandrakalabai W/o Arun Yelge, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household, 4. Shobhabai W/o Govindrao Bagade, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Service, All R/o Loha, Tq. Loha, District Nanded. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The Collector Nanded, District Nanded. 2. The Municipal Council, Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded, Through its Chief Officer. 3. Gajanan S/o Subhashrao Suryawanshi, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Deul Galli, Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. .. .. Respondents 2 wp 7905.11 Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 is deleted. Shri M. V. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Shri Hon, the learned counsel for petitioners seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is deleted at the risk of petitioners. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The present respondent No. 3 had filed disqualification petition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership Disqualification Act 1986. The present petitioners raised an objection regarding maintainability of the petition, so also for dismissal of the petition on the ground that petition does not comply the mandatory rules as laid down under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership Disqualification Rules. The said objection is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present 3 wp 7905.11 petition is filed. 4. Shri Hon, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Collector while passing the impugned order has not dealt with the objection in a proper manner. Whether the Rules are directory or mandatory was not the subject matter in issue. The petition does not comply with the Rules. The petition is not verified as is required under law, nor the documents are signed and verified. According to the learned counsel Rule 6(4) of the Disqualification Rules lay down mandate that petitioner shall sign and verify the petition and the annexures in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel further contends that the said Rules are mandatory and prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the objection. 5. Shri M. V. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the Rules are directory as is held by the Apex Court in a case of Kedar Shashikant Deshpande Vs. Bhor Municipal Council and others reported in (2011) 2 S.C.C. 654. 6. According to the learned counsel the said Rules being 4 wp 7905.11 directory, the petition cannot be dismissed for non observation of the same. Even otherwise the respondent No. 3 has complied the said Rules. 7. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the petition filed by the present respondent No. 3 and order impugned. 8. Perusal of the petition it is manifest that the verification is not done as is required U/O VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel also fairly concedes that the documents were not signed and verified. In such circumstances, it could not have been held that the petition complies with the Rules. No doubt, the Apex Court and this Court has time and again held that the said Rules under the Disqualification Rules are directory in the nature and said defects are curable. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the authority to direct the petitioner to comply with the said defect. 9. In such circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the light 5 wp 7905.11 of the above, I pass the following order. A. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. B. The respondent No. 3 shall file an application for curing the said defects regarding non compliance of Rule 6 and various sub rules of Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules. C. The said application filed by the present respondent No. 3 shall be considered by the Collector on its merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the objection filed by the present petitioners and application of the respondent No. 3. D. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Authenticated copy be given to the parties to act upon. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11