( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3298 OF 2010 Pandit Vithalrao Dhumal and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Trimbakrao Shrirangrao Bhise and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Chandole, advocate, holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. E.P. Sawant, advocate with Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the respondent No. 2. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ] [DATE : 3rd May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioners challenge order dated 17th March, 2010, rendered by the Collector, Latur. The objections raised by them were turned down. According to the petitioners, the verification of the petition was not proper and that Rule 6 read with section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority, Members Disqualification ( 2 ) Act, 1987 and the Rules of 1987 framed thereunder, have been breached. The contention of the petitioners is that the verification of the petitions was not in accordance with the Order 6 Rule 15 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. This Court has already taken a view that verification of the petition is not a mandatory formality and substantial compliance would suffice the purpose. The technicality will not cause legal impediment in the election process. It appears that similar view is taken by a Single Bench of Nagpur Bench as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Bench in writ petition No. 3875/2009 and group of petitions connected therewith. The learned Judge of this Court held that the procedure as provided under the Rules framed by the Legislative Assembly or by the Chairman of the House or the Speaker, as the case may be, are required to be adhered to during the enquiry since they are the pari materia provisions. The view taken in “Chandrakant s/o Gajananrao Pise & others v. Collector, Nagpur & others” 2010 (1) BOM.C.R. 125 = 2010 (1) Mah. L.J. 268 has been followed. This Court in “Manoj Bansilal Biyani v. Sameer Krishnadhan ( 3 ) Karr & another” 2009 (5) Bom.C.R. 753, took the same view which is followed so far by the other Single Benches. Therefore, the legal position is well settled. No interference is called for in view of settled legal position. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3298-2010