1 SSK/43 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5202 OF 2010 Tukaram Ganpat Kale & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Ankush Kondiba Jadhav & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent No.3 CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Nargolkar, learned AGP for Respondent No.3. 2. The Respondent No.1 has filed a Reference Petition No.52 of 2009 under Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short “the said Act”) and Rules of 1987(for short, “the said Rules”) seeking declaration that the Petitioners stood disqualified to be Councillors under the provisions of the said Act. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that he and Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 belong to the Indian National Congress, 2 Indapur Panchayat Samithi Party and they have voted against the whip issued by Respondent No.1 as a leader of the party in election of chairman and vice-chairman of the Respondent No.2-Panchayat Samithi. 3. The Petitioners initially took preliminary objection about the maintainability of the reference petition on the ground that some of the annexures to the the petition are not verified in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, reference petition is liable to be dismissed. The preliminary objection was overruled by the Collector. The matter was carried to this Court and this Court after hearing the parties held that the provisions of Rule 6(4) i.e. requiring every petition and any annexure there to should be signed by the Petitioner and verified in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not mandatory. This decision was confirmed by the Apex Court. The Petitioners thereafter, preferred an application on 21st April, 2010 before the Respondent No.3-Collector requesting that the original document/agenda dated 13th March, 2010 be sent to expert for examining age of printing of verification of the said notice/agenda and signature thereon. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that one of the annexures to the petition was verified subsequent to the order passed by this Court on 8th April, 2010 in writ petition no. 2007 of 2010. The aforesaid application 3 filed by the Petitioners was opposed by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3-Collector rejected the Petitioners’ application by the order impugned in the present petition. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order for the reasons stated herein after. Firstly, the reference petition alongwith annexures thereto is in the custody of Respondent No.3-Collector. The Respondent No.1 has no access to the said documents and therefore, it is not possible for him to verify one of the annexures subsequent to the order passed by this Court on 8th April, 2010. Secondly, in writ petition no. 2007 of 2010 after hearing both the sides, this Court held that the rule requiring verification of the annexures to the reference petition is not mandatory and therefore, non- verification of the said annexures will not result in dismissal of the reference petition. In the light of this decision it was not at all necessary for the Respondent No.1 to verify the annexures to the reference petition. Thirdly, it is alleged that out of two annexures which remained to be verified, only one annexure was verified subsequent to the order dated 8th April, 2010. The Respondent No.1 will not get any advantage by verifying one of the annexures, since another one remains without verification. 4 6. In these circumstances, non-verification of the annexures to the reference petition will not entail in dismissal of the reference petition and therefore, the Petitioners’ objection that one of the annexures to the reference petition was verified subsequent to the order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by this Court in writ petition no.2007 of 2010 cannot be entertained. In the above facts and circumstances, I find that the petition is devoid of merits and same is dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)