( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1187 OF 2010 Salimoddin Chirogoddin Shaikh PETITIONER VERSUS Jalaloddin Kadir Shaikh & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Rane, advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for respondents No. 4 to 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon was moved by application dated 13th October, 2005 filed by the respondent No. 1 to take action against the petitioner for disqualification under section 44 (e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, “the MMC Act”). The Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a municipal councilor and, therefore, there was no question of declaring him as disqualified councilor. ( 2 ) It was the contention of the respondent No. 1 (applicant) that the petitioner had raised unauthorized construction of a shed in daily market area and that he has also constructed a house property on city survey No. 2960 without permission of the Municipal Council. The Collector took cognizance of these grounds raised in the application and directed that the process for demolition of unauthorized construction may be started and that the encroachment on the public road shall be removed immediately. According to the petitioner, the Collector had no such power to direct removal of encroachment or commencement of process for such removal, in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 44 of the MMC Act. It is argued that the Collector acted in excess of the powers available under the MMC Act and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal. 3. The learned counsel for the Municipal Council submits that the Council has issued notice to the petitioner for removal of the encroachment and the construction. He points out that the petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before the Hon’ble State Minister. It appears that interim stay has been vacated by the Hon’ble State Minister. Since the Collector has not taken any action as such, but has ( 3 ) directed the Municipal Council to take action, the impugned order rendered by the Collector cannot be said to be totally without jurisdiction. The powers of the Collector under section 307 (b) of the MMC Act are thus : “307. The Director or the Collector shall have power - (a) ***** (b) to require the Council to take into its consideration any objection which appears to him to exist to the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of such Council or any information which he is able to furnish and which appears to him to necessitate the doing of a certain thing by the Council, and to make a written reply to him within a reasonable time stating its reasons for not desisting from doing, or for not doing, such thing.” Impliedly, the Collector’s control over the actions of the Municipal Council is contemplated under section 307 and he may pass on any information received by him to the Municipal Council for taking appropriate action or may ask the Municipal Council to consider the objection which appears to exist. By the impugned order, what the Collector has done is that he directed the Municipal Council to consider the objections ( 4 ) raised by the respondent No. 1 and to take appropriate action. The petitioner is at liberty to give reply to the show-cause notice and agitate all his legal objections. In this view of the matter, the petition is without substance and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1187-10