Savita Deepak Gavari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr.H.S.Venegavkar i/by Mr.Devidas Botkondle, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ............ ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 11th September, 2012. P.C.: 1 2 Mentioned. Not on board. Mr.Venegavkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the urgency arises on account of the fact that the Respondent No.2 Collector, Thane is proceeding with the complaint which alleges that the Petitioner has defied the direction or whip of the Municipal party and therefore, deserves to be disqualified in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and 3(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act,

1986. 3 The Collector has dismissed an application made by the Petitioner for summoning some of the persons as witnesses. He has only allowed the application for summoning the witness No.1 and rejected it, without assigning any reasons, in respect of others. This would cause prejudice to the Petitioner and the urgency is that the matter is posted tomorrow i.e. 12.09.2012. 4 Having heard Mr.Venegavkar and perusing with his assistance *2* wp.8771.12.19.nob.sxw the order passed on the application to summon certain persons as witnesses, I am satisfied that insofar as the witness No.1 is concerned, the Petitioner can proceed and examine him. Insofar as other witnesses are concerned, it can be clarified that the request of the Petitioner can be renewed before the Collector, Thane and if she makes a fresh application seeking to summon and call additional witnesses, that application can be dealt with by the Collector on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the rejection of the earlier application. With this clarification this Writ Petition need not be kept pending and it is disposed of. All contentions with regard to summoning the witnesses, as also, merits are kept open. 5 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)