1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3314 with 3474 OF 2008 Avinash Bhikaji Ingle Vs. Collector Buldhana & Another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Gupta Adv. for petitioner. Shri A. S. Mardikar Adv. for respondent-2. Smt. Wasnik AGP for respondent-1. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th APRIL, 2009. This petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Collector on 04.04.2008 whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 3 and 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act and Rules framed thereunder before the Collector. After this application was filed by the present petitioner a notice thereof was issued to the respondents. Respondents appeared before the Collector and raised a preliminary 2 objection that the documents that have been filed by the present petitioner before the Collector along with the application bear the forged signatures of the respondents. Respondents contended that they had never received any kind of notice at any time and as such they were not bound by that and were not aware. These preliminary objections as well as main application were considered by the Collector and the Collector by order dated 14.06.2007 upheld the preliminary objection and rejected the application of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order Writ Petition No. 2979 of 2007 came to be filed before this Court. This Court after hearing the parties found that the order passed by the Collector was not reasoned and was therefore liable to be set aside. This Court therefore set aside the order passed by the Collector with a direction to decide the application and preliminary objection a fresh. After the matter was remanded the Collector once again heard the parties and passed an order on 04.04.2008 rejecting the application under Section 3 and 6 and upholding the preliminary objection raised. Being aggrieved by that the petitioner has once again preferred this Writ Petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner once again submits before me that even the second order of the Collector does not disclose any reason why the application under Section 3 read with Rule 6 has been rejected. He submits that 3 the High Court had remanded the matter back to the Collector with a direction to pass a reasoned order and to hear the parties. He submits that the order that has been passed by the Collector is in fact in breach of the directions given by this Court inasmuch as it does not disclose any reason. Shri Mardikar learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the order does disclose the reasons why the application is rejected and why the preliminary objection is upheld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Collector had only said that there was non compliance of Rule 6 and 7 of the Rules referred to above but does not disclose the reasons. The order of the Collector does show that he observed that there has been no compliance of Rule 6 and 7. Rule 6 and 7 of the said Rules read as follows: Rule 6(3): (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and, (b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence, if any, on which the petitioner relies and where the petitioner relies on any information furnished to him by any person, statement containing the names and addresses of such persons and the gist of such information as furnished by each such person. Rule 7: 7(1): On receipt of a petition under rule 6, the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirements laid down in that rule. 4 (2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. (3) If the petition complies with the requirements of rule 6, the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector shall forward copies of the petition and of the annexures thereto - (a) to the councillor in relation to a municipal party and a Zilla Parishad party and member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party in respect of whom the petition has been made, and (b) where such councillor in relation to a municipal party and a Zilla Parishad party and member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party belongs to any political party or aghadi or front and such petition has not been made by the leader thereof, also to such leader; and such councillor, member or leader shall, within seven days of the receipt of such copies, or within such further period as the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector may for sufficient reason allow, forward his comments in writing thereon to the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector.” 4, After having gone through the said Rules it is apparent that there is a compliance of Rule 6 and 7, inasmuch as application itself contains the concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and the application is also supported by the documents. That is the only compliance that is required under Rule 6. Rule 7(1) says that if there is no compliance of Rule 6 application is liable to be rejected. 5 5. After having gone through the contents of the application I find that there is a compliance inasmuch as there is a concise statement and the application is supported by the documents. The material question however was whether the Collector was bound to consider the question as to whether the signatures on the documents that have been placed on record were forged or not. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it could have been decided only after the evidence was tendered before the Court. It appears from the order of the Collector that neither party had made any application before the Collector that they want to lead evidence on that question. Collector was therefore left with no other alternative but to resort to the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Order passed by the Collector does disclose that he has himself compared the signatures of the petitioners on the applications for nomination as well as the acknowledgments of the notices and he has after comparison found that the signatures on the acknowledgments of the notices are not that of petitioner. There is no reason for this Court to set aside this finding if the Collector has himself compared the signatures and given a finding. It is not shown to me as to how that finding can be said to be perverse or illegal. In fact the Court has an authority under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare and to give a finding. The Collector has done so. The finding of the Collector therefore that the signatures on the acknowledgments of notice are forged has 6 therefore to be accepted and I do not find any reason to set aside that finding. 6. In view of the fact that the signatures on the acknowledgment of notices are forged it must follow as a necessary corollary that there is no notice of whip issued by the party and as such petitioner was not bound by the said whip. In view of this I find that the learned Collector did not err in rejecting the application under Section 3 read with Rule 6. There is, therefore, no substance in the petition. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE svk 7 8 9