1 WP 7035.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7035 OF 2011 1. Kiran S/o Narhari Wattamwar Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. 2. Sharad S/o Namdeo Pawar Age : 29 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. 3 . Chandrakalabai W/o Arun Yelge Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. 4. Shobhabai W/o Govindrao Bagade Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Collector, Nanded District : Nanded. 2. The Municipal Council Loha, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded. 3. Gajanan S/o Subhashrao Suryawanshi Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Business, R/o : Deulgalli, Loha, Tq. Loha, District : Nanded. ..... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 7035.2011 - [ J ] Mr. V.D.Hon & S.G.Rudrawar, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. D.V.Soman, Advocate holding for Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent no. 3 had filed petition under the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership Disqualification Act, 1986 [ For short, ‘ Disqualification Act ’ ]. The present petitioners appeared and filed objection under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership Disqualification Rules [ For short, ‘ Disqualification Rules ’ ] and sought dismissal of the petition for non compliance of Rule 6 and 7 of the Disqualification Rules. The Collector, Nanded vide Order dated 07/09/2011 rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. V.D.Hon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, 3 WP 7035.2011 - [ J ] Mr. D.V. Soman, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 4. Respondent no. 2 is not necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition as the objection was raised by the petitioners and the present respondent no. 3, had filed the petition. 5. Mr. Soman, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that the rules are directory and even if the rules are not complied, the same can not vitiate the proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the rules have been complied and there is no defect in filing the petition. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jitendra Himmat Biraris V/s Kiran S/o Gulabrao Patil and another reported in 2010 ( 6 ) Mh.L.J. - 208 and the another Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil S/o Supdu Mahajan V/s Manoj Dayaram Choudhari and another reported in 2011 ( 4 ) Mh.L.J. 630 to substantiate his contention that the rules are merely directory. The learned counsel further contends that the Collector after having satisfied himself, rejected the said petition. No fault can be found in the said order. 6. I have perused the impugned order. The same is passed on Roznama. From the perusal of the said order, it is manifest that no 4 WP 7035.2011 - [ J ] reasons are given by the Collector while deciding the said objection. The impugned order states that by the application, the petitioners had made request for counting but the preliminary objection, does not pertains to the same. The objection was with regard to the non compliance of Rules 6 and 7 of the Disqualification Rules. 7. Reasons are the life line of any quasi judicial proceedings. They depict the application of mind of the authority. Perusal of the impugned order does not depict the application of mind of the authority concerned to the objection raised. 8. In view of the fact that the order impugned does not show any application of mind nor gives any reasons, the impugned order can not be sustained and the same as such is set aside. 9. The Collector, Nanded shall decide the objection raised by the petitioners vide application under Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules afresh by giving reasons after hearing the respective parties. 10. The order is set aside only on the ground that the order is passed without assigning any reasons. I have not considered the other arguments of the parties about the nature of objection and the rules being directory in nature. 5 WP 7035.2011 - [ J ] 11. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. 12. Taking into account the nature of dispute, the Collector, Nanded shall decide the matter expeditiously. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7035.2011 - [ J ]