1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3907 OF 2010 1. PANDIT VITHALRAO DHUMAL Age : 47 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI.AND PRESIDENT OF ZILLA PARISHAD, LATUR, RESIDENT OF SHEDOL, TAL NILANGA, DISTRICT LATUR 2. SAMBHAJIRAO MADHAVRAO PATIL Age : 63 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI.AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ZILLA PARISHAD, LATUR, R/O SHIRUR ANANTPAL TAL SHIRUR ANANTPAL, DISTRICT LATUR 3. SHESHERAO TRIMBAKRAO PATIL Age : 45 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI. R/O CHINCHOLI TAPSE TQ. AUSA DISTRICT LATUR 4. RAMDAS JAISISNGRAO CHAVAN Age : 52 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O DEOTALA, TAL. AUSA DISTRICT LATUR 5. JALIMIYA GAFURMIYA DESHMUKH Age : 50 YEARS,OCCU.AGRI., R/O SHINDKHED, TQ. NILANGA DISTRICT LATUR 6. VINAYAK SHANKARRAO WAGHMARE Age : 35 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O BOROL, TQ. DEONI DISTRICT LATUR 7. RISHIKESH VITHOBA BADDE Age : 52 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O UJED, TQ. SHIRUR ANANTPAL DISTRICT LATUR 2 8. CHANNAPPA BASWANAPPA HOLKUNDE Age : 58 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., KASARSHIRSHI TQ. NILANGA DISTRICT LATUR 9. RAM NAMDEVRAO GAIKWAD Age : 48 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O DONGARGAON, TQ. SHIRUR ANANTPAL DISTRICT LATUR 10. NAGESH DNYANOBA TUBKLE Age : 30 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., CHILWANTWADI, TQ. NILANGA DISTRICT LATUR 11. SAU. BHARATBAI SHIVAJIRAO ANCHULE Age : 50 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI/HOUSEHOLD, R/O SAWARI, TQ. NILANGA DISTRICT LATUR 12. SAU KUSHAWARTA CHANDRASHEKHAR BELLE Age : 48 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI/HOUSEHOLD R/O DEONI, TQ. DEONI DISTRICT LATUR ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. TRIMBAKRAO SHRIRANGRAO BHISE AGE 45 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O BHOKARAMBA TQ. RENAPUR DISTRICT LATUR 2. DILIP MALSHETTI PATIL Age : 45 YEARS, OCCU.AGRI., R/O NAGRAL TQ. DEONI, DISTRICT LATUR (3) THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED 2.12.2009, OF ZILLA PARISHAD, LATUR MR. SHIVAJI SHINDE, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LATUR, DISTRICT LATUR ..DELETED 3 (4) THE ZILLA PARISHAD, LATUR, THORUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LATUR ..DELETED 5. THE COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, LATUR, DISTRICT LATUR ..RESPONDENTS Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.G.Rudrawar and Mr.S.S.Chillarge, Advocates for petitioner Mr.E.P.Savant, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.K.G.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.5 Respondents 3 and 4 deleted as per Courts leave dated 29.4.2010. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 4th May 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, pending before the Collector, under Section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority, Members Disqualification Act, 1987. In addition thereto the 4 petitioners also pray for issuance of appropriate directions/order to the respondents not to give effect to an adverse order, if passed by the Collector, in the pending proceedings, for a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the said order so as to enable the petitioners to resort to appropriate alternate remedies for challenging the said adverse order. 3. It appears that the petitioners are facing the disqualification proceedings under Section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority, Members Disqualification Act, 1987 which is registered as 1 of 2009, said to be pending before the Collector, Latur. It also appears that the petitioners herein had raised preliminary objection in respect of said proceedings before the Collector which came to be turned down by the Collector. The petitioners, being aggrieved, challenged the said order of the Collector by filing the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said writ petition. In the light of the fact that the proceedings are pending and the proceedings provide adequate mechanism for adjudication before the Collector, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition so far as it relates to prayer for quashing and setting aside the pending proceedings. The petitioners then would have appropriate remedy of challenging the outcome of the proceedings. 5 4. In so far as the other alternate relief is concerned, Mr.Savant, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has strongly objected to grant the aforesaid relief on the ground that conduct of the petitioners completely belies the grant of the said alternate relief. According to Mr.Savant, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners are deliberately avoiding to file reply before the Collector so as to protract the proceedings as far as possible. It is urged by Mr.Savant, learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are procrastinating the proceedings and intend to do so. 5. Be that as it may, we are inclined to allow this petition in respect of the alternate relief. No remedy of appeal is provided under the Statute and the petitioners, therefore, will have to resort to the other remedies available to the petitioners in law. In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition to the limited extent of directing the respondents not to give effect to an order, if adverse to the interest of the petitioner, passed by the Collector in the pending proceedings viz., 1 of 2009, under Section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority, Members Disqualification Act, 1987, for a period of ten days from the receipt of the said order. 6 6. Rule made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3907.10wp)