1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION Nos.5689/2009 & 5691/2009. (Sudhakar s/o Pandit Patil Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SS Agrawal, Adv. for petitioner; Mrs.RK Laddha, AGP for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2; Mr.SD Hiwrekar, Adv. for Resp. Nos. 3 & 4. Mr.RN Bharaswadkar, Adv. h/for Mr. MM Patil, Adv. for R.No.5. ___ CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 13 th November, 2009. ... 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner claims to have filed Disqualification Petitions before the Collector, Aurangabad, under section 44(1)(E) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, seeking disqualification of the Respondent No.5 (in WP No.5689/2009) and Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (in WP No.5691/2009) to be Councilors of the Respondent No.3- Municipal Council. The petitioner submits that the said Disqualification Petitions were filed in the month of March 2009 and still they are pending before the Collector and there has 2 occurred undue delay in disposal of the said petitions and, therefore, the petitioner has no other alternative, but to approach this Court for seeking directions to the authorities concerned to decide the same. 3) Learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Council submits that the petitioner himself is an encroacher. 4) Learned AGP, on instructions, states that the Collector would decide the aforesaid Disqualification Petitions within a period of one month from today. 5) We accept the statement made by learned AGP and dispose of the writ petition in the light of the statement made by learned AGP. Needless to say that the Collector shall decide the Disqualification Petitions on their own merits and in accordance with law. 6) We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim set out by the petitioner. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H.PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp5689.09