FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders WRIT PETITION NO. 8862 OF 2011 TARABAI DILIPRAO PATIL AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patil Prakashsing B. AGP for Respondents: Mr. D.R.Kale Adv N B Suryawanshi For R 3. ... CORAM : S V GANGAPURWALA, J. Dated: November 21, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. The present respondent had initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Member’s Disqualification Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as Disqualification Act’ for the sake of convenience). Initially the Collector allowed the dis- qualification petition. Same was assailed by the present petitioner in this Court vide Writ Petition No.472/2011. Same was partly allowed. Only controversy remained was about the payment of subscription. For the said purpose matter was remanded to the collector. The Collector there after held that, petitioner has paid subscription and as such disqualified the petitioner to be a member of the Municipal Council, respondent No.4. Said order is assailed in the present petition. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 2. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Collector has not properly appreciated the evidence in regard to the payment of subscription. In this Court a statement was made by the respondent that five years subscription in advance has been paid where as only receipt for the year 2009-2010 was produced on record. According to the learned counsel, on that basis, petitioner cannot be said to be member of the said Aghadi. 3. Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the order. Learned counsel further states that subscription for the year 2009-2010 is also paid. In view of this, petitioner failed to adhere to the directions issued in the year 2009. The petitioner cannot be said to have not paid the subscription for the relevant period. Order is proper. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings and order. The directions are said to have been issued on 19.2.2009. As the petitioner did not comply with the directions, the disqualification petition was filed in the year 2009. The record shows and as Collector has observed that subscription of the petitioner as Member of said Shahar Vikas Aghadi was paid for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner was member of the Aghadi and was bound by the directions. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 5. The collector has properly appreciated the evidence in this regard and also has examined the documents. As such, there is no error in the order disqualifying the petitioner to be a member of the respondent No.4 Municipal Council on the basis of elections held in the year 2006. 6. In view of above, writ petition being sans merits stands dismissed however no order as to costs. ( S V GANGAPURWALA, J. ) aaa/- ...