wp5553.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5553 OF 2015
Razia Begum Syed Natiquoddin
Khatib President as well as
leader of Nagar Vikas Party Balapur,
Distt. Akola as well as Councillor
of Municipal Council Balapur, aged
52 yrs. Occu.Agriculturist R/o
Sayyed Pura Balapur, Distt.Akola.
ig PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] The District Collector,Akola.
2] Mohamad Zamir Sheikh
Ibrahim, aged 48 yrs. Occu.
Business, R/o Satranjipura,
Shahar Balapur, Distt.Akola.
3] The Municipal Council
Balapur through its Chief
Officer, Municipal Council
Balapur, Distt. Akola.
4] The Election Officer/Returning
Officer, Municipal Council
General Election 2011 The Sub-
Divisional Officer, Balapur,
Distt. Akola.
5] The Presiding Officer for the
Election of President and Vice
President of the Municipal
Council Balapur for the year
2014, The Sub-Divisional Officer
Balapur, Distt. Akola. RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:05 :::
wp5553.15 2 Shri Akshay Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5.
Shri S. D. Chopde, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : JUNE 29, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2015 passed
by the respondent no.1 dismissing the disqualification petition that was filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.2. It is not necessary to go into detailed facts as after hearing the learned counsel for the parties it has been found that the disqualification petition filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short, the said Act) has not been decided in the manner prescribed by the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (for short, the said Rules).
3] After the disqualification petition was filed, the respondent no.2 filed his reply on record. Thereafter the articles of charge came to be framed as per provisions of Rule 7(6) of the said Rules on 23.04.2015. After this stage it was necessary on the part of the Collector to follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 7(8) of the said Rules. Both the parties filed their affidavits on record but without examining the deponents on oath or they ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:05 ::: wp5553.15 3 being cross-examined, the respondent no.1 by considering the opinion of the handwriting expert that was filed on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had condoned the act on the part of the respondent no.1 of disobeying the whip in question. On that basis the disqualification petition came to be dismissed.
4] After perusal of the records of the disqualification petition along with Roznama it is not in dispute that the proceedings have not been decided by following the procedure as prescribed by Rule 7(8) of the said Rules.
Moreover, as per the articles of charge there were four charges framed in the proceedings. In the impugned order there is discussion only in respect of the charge No. 2 and the disqualification petition has been thereafter dismissed.
This factual aspect is evident from the record.
5] Considering the fact that it was necessary on the part of the respondent no.1 to have followed the procedure as stipulated by Rule 7 of the said Rules, the impugned order passed without following the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, on this short ground the order dated 08.09.2015 is liable to be set aside.
6] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed:
a] The order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 dismissing the disqualification petition is quashed and set aside.
b] The disqualification petition is restored to file for being decided in accordance with law. The Collector shall decide the proceedings afresh from the stage as contemplated by Rules 7(8) of the Rules of 1987.
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:05 :::wp5553.15 4 c] The parties undertake to appear before the respondent no.1 on 11.07.2016. The respondent no.1 shall decide the said proceedings by the end of 30.09.2016 in accordance with law and after considering the submissions of the respective parties. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE svk ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:32:05 :::