Bombay High Court
Sau. Manisha W/O. Manish Nangliya ... vs Honble Collector, Amravati And ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2020.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2020 OF 2016
1. Sau. Manisha w/o Manish Nangliya
aged 40 yrs., Occp. Household,
President, Municipal Council,
Chandur Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Distt. Amravati.
2. Manoj @ Bhaiyya s/o Nanasaheb Langote,
aged 48 yrs., Occp. Agriculture,
r/o Marwadipura, Chandur Bazar,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
3. Gopal s/o Pandurang Tirmare,
aged 34 yrs., Occp. Business,
r/o c/o Radhika General Stores,
Near Mahadeo Mandir, Youngestar Chowk,
Chandur Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Distt. Amravati. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Hon'ble Collector, Amravati.
2. Abdul Raheman Shaikh Ibrahim
aged 60 yrs., Occp. Business,
r/o Rashtrasant Chowk, Chandur Bazar,
Tq. Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati.
3. Sau. Sunita w/o Vijay Ganveer,
aged 45 yrs., Occp. Household,
r/o in front of Bhaktidhan Mandir,
Chandur Bazar, Tq. Chandur Bazar,
Distt. Amravati. :: RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri P. Mahalle, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V. P. Maldhure, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri A. V. Gawande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
...................................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:56:12 :::
wp2020.16.odt 2/4
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 4th APRIL, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
3. The proceedings regarding disqualification of the petitioner
in view of the objection taken under Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 are pending before
respondent No.1. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
petitioners filed an application for direction to produce some
documents. One document, which is a notice of meeting allegedly
held on 25/10/2015, in the opinion of the petitioner is extremely
relevant and, therefore, a direction for production of this document in
particular was sought.
4. It is seen from the record, which I have gone through with
the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P.
for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
that respondent No.1 has not decided this application. Respondent
No.1 has not passed any order either allowing the application or
rejecting the application. Respondent No.1 has only made an
endorsement, which has been challenged in this petition, that the
application could be considered as an argument.
wp2020.16.odt 3/4
5. When it was the case of the petitioners that notice of the
meeting dated 25/10/2015 was necessary for the purpose of giving a
finding to the objection, respondent No.1 ought to have recorded his
finding either by accepting the contention or rejecting it. Respondent
No.1 has not done so. The endorsement made on the application
would have to be called an order dated 02/3/2015 and for the reason
stated earlier, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, I
am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.
6.
Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that
now the remainder of the term is only of six months and, therefore,
direction be issued for deciding the dispute in an expeditious manner.
7. The prayer is reasonable and, therefore, deserves to be
accepted.
8. In the result,
I. The writ petition is allowed.
II. Impugned direction dated 02//3/2016 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
III. It is directed that respondent No.1 shall decide the
application regarding issuance of direction to produce the
document within one week from the appearance of the
parties before him.
IV. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an application
seeking direction to produce on record the Proceeding
Book of meeting dated 17/12/2011, which application
shall be filed on the date of appearance of the petitioners
with copy thereof having been furnished to respondent
wp2020.16.odt 4/4
Nos. 2 and 3 well in advance and thereafter it shall be
decided according to law within one week.
V. The proceedings regarding disqualification of the
petitioners shall be decided in accordance with law within
four weeks from the date on which afore-stated
applications are decided.
VI. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appear
before respondent No.1 on 11/4/2016 at 11.00 a.m.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wwl
