1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4573 OF 2011 Sau.Shubhangi Pradhan Mali .. Petitioner Versus The Collector, Kolhapur District & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr.Surel Shah for petitioners Mr.Prashant Kulkarni for respondent No.5 Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke with Prabhakar Jadhav for respondent No.1 Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent/ State CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. RESERVED ON : 4th August 2011 Pronounced on : 6th September 2011. ORAL ORDER: Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 1] This petitioner is a lady Councillor of the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council. She is also disqualified under section 44(1)(e) of the Municipalities Act. As far as she is concerned, 2 it is stated that property bearing No.20/695 belongs to the spouse of this Councillor and the Collector's finding to the extent relevant reads thus:- “ Respondent Shubhangi Pradhan Mali and her spouse Shri.Pradhan Mayappa Mali jointly own the property No.24/1689. As per the assessment report of 2004-05, the area under construction is 219.56 sqr.mtr. It remain same in 2008-09 as per assessment record. But when Shri.Javed Mulla, Section Engineer, Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji took measurement on 16/10/2010, he found that there is Iind floor on the date consisting of two bedroom, one kitchen and one worship home admeasuring 102.78 sqr.mtr. Further, he noted in his report that area of power loom shed which was 134.95 sqr.mtr in 2004-05 and 2008-09 (as per the assessment record) is increased to 172.98 sqr.mtr. It’s dimension (length X width) was changed from 14.50 M X 9.60 M (equal to 134.95 sqr.mtr) to 18.60 M X 9.30 M (equal to 172.98 sqr.mtr). These two constructions i.e of second floor admeasuring 102.78 sqr.mtr and increased power loom shed was 3 not seen in the assessment record of both the years 2004-05 and 2008-09. This new construction seen to be carried out when respondent Shubhangi Pradhan Mali was councillor of Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji. She submitted in her written say dated 5/8/2010 that the area of power loom shed was 172.98 sqr.mtr when she and her spouse purchased it in 1999, but wrongly mentioned its area as 134.95 sqr.mtr in assessment of the year 2004-05 and 2008-09. But close perusal of record show that Mr.Mali has signed on the register, where area has shown as 134.95 sqr.mtr. So she can’t now say that area of powerloom shed is wrongly written and there is no increase in area. However, she is silent about new construction on second floor admeasuring 102.78 sqr.mtrs which was reported by Mr.Mulla and note recorded in the assessment of 2008-09. Her silence in this regard prove the construction of 2nd floor, which is without building permission and after the assessment of 2008-09 when she was councillor of Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji.” 4 2] For the reasons set out in the judgement delivered in Writ Petition No.4507 of 2011 (Dadasaheb Bhatale Vs. State of Maharashtra) and the controversy being identical, this petition also succeeds and is allowed. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)