1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6001 OF 2010 (Masood Ahmed s/o. Shaikh Ahmed .vs. Hon'ble Minister for State Urban Deptt. and 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. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2010. Heard Mr.S.P.Bhandakar, Adv. for petitioner and Mrs.R,A.Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2. By placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. for the petitioner contends that the words “ has constructed “ or “ construct “ show that persons who raised constructions prior to election are also subject to disqualification. According to him, the words “ has constructed “ have been employed deliberately and here, after the election in 2006, the construction was continuing till 2008 and it was regularised on 30.5.2008. According to the learned Counsel, such construction which has been raised by encroaching on the Government land must be treated as continuing till it is regularised and if it is not so treated, the purpose behind provisions of Section 44 will stand frustrated. He also argues that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported at 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 925, Javed Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, 2 L.P.A.No.320 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.4911 of 2008 decided on 16.3.2009 was not required to consider this controversy and hence, it needs to be restricted to the facts and situation appearing therein. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the controversy is covered by the said Division Bench judgment. Perusal of the Division Bench Judgment shows that placement of said disqualification in Section 44 has been a material factor which has influenced the adjudication therein. Section 44, sub-section (1) specifically envisages incurring disqualification “at any time during the term of Office”. Otherwise, the amendment would have been to Section 16 which provides for disqualification for becoming a councilor. I am, therefore not in a position to accept the contention of Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar, Adv. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that construction has been undertaken after 2006. Getting construction regularised in 2008 will not attract disqualification u/s. 44(1)(e) of the Act and hence, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE jais