Pandit v. Trimbakrao Shirrangrao Bhise

Shri.S.V.Chandole, Advocate for Appellants. Shri.S.P.Sawant,Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri A.S.Bajaj,Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Resp. No.3 to 5. .... K.K.TATED, JJ. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT :

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge (CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.) is under challenge, in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2 L.P.A.No.180.10

3. Mr.Chandole, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the view adopted by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and in conflict with the view expressed by the Apex Court in the matter of Sadashiv H. Patil Vs. Vihal D. Teke and others reported in 2000(Supp) Bom.C.R.829. Learned counsel further submits that mandatory requirements of the Rules under Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 and Rules 1987 were not followed and complied with. Therefore, the appellants had filed an application raising objection. By an order passed below Exhibit 1,3, 4 and 5 in petition No. ZPPS/1/2009, dated 17.03.2010, the Collector, Latur rejected the interim objection petition.

4. The learned counsel referred to provisions of Rule 6 read with Section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1987 and Rules 1987 framed thereunder, and submits that the compliance of Rules was not made, therefore, the petition ought not to have been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

5. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 placed reliance on the following judgments: 1] Dr.Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman Bihar Legislative Council and others reported in 2004(8) SCC 747. 3 L.P.A.No.180.10 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007(6) Bom. C.R. 214. Manoj Bansilal Biyani and another Vs. Sunil Murlidhar Choudhari, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 361. Manoj Bansilal Biyani Vs. Sameer Krishadhan Kart and another reported in 2009(5) Bom.C.R.753 Chandrakant S/o Gajananrao Pise and others Vs. Collector, Nagpur and others reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L. J.268 In the matters of Mrs. Rajnibai Baburao Gharte Vs. Kiran Gulabrao Patil and another [In the group of Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2009] decided on 1st September, 2010.

6. The learned counsel submits that issue in respect of compliance of the procedural Rules in identical circumstances was considered even by this Court [Coram : NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K.TATED JJ.], in the group of Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2009 decided on 1st September, 2010. The counsel submits that the learned Collector, Latur has passed reasoned order and rejected the contentions, based on sound reasoning and view adopted by the Collector in the impugned order is in consonance with the pronouncement of Higher Courts. 4 L.P.A.No.180.10

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, perused the relevant record placed before us and the Judgments cited supra. This Court had an occasion to deal with the issue in respect of the compliance of the Provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority, Members Disqualification Act, 1987 and Rules 1987, in the proceedings of LPA cited supra.

8. In para Nos.13 and 14 of the order of this Court, it was observed that : “13. We do not notice any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has referred to all the relevant cases relied upon by the contesting parties and has even reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the respective case laws. We are convinced that the issue in respect of Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1987 or any other identically framed Rules was not the subject matter before the Apex Court in the Case of Sadashiv H. Patil Vs. Vithal D. Teke and others, cited supra. The issue in respect of the application of procedural law in matters of Election petitions/Disqualification petition was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mahachandra prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others, cited supra, and it was held that such procedure would be directory in nature. We have perused the views of the learned Single Judge in the case of Manoj Bansilal Biyani Vs. Sameer Krishnandhan Kart and another, 2009(5) Bom. C. R.Page 753 (Coram : SHRI V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.) and in the case of Chandrakant 5 L.P.A.No.180.10 S/o Gajananrao Pise and others Vs. Collector, Nagpur and others, 2010(1) Mh.L.J. Page 268 (CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.). We find that in both these cases, the learned single Judge of this court have held that the Judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others, cited supra is directly on the point. In principle, the law enunciated by the Apex Court is that rule making authority can not dilute or interfere with the intention of the law.” “14. The learned Single Judge held that he was in respectful agreement with the pronouncements made by the learned Single Judge in the matters of Chandrakant Pise and Manoj Biyani, cited supra which in turn, refers to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others cited supra.”

8. The learned Collector, Latur considered the facts and circumstances and dealt with the issue by referring to the record. The Collector reached conclusion that the necessary procedural requirements as enunciated under Rules have been followed. After going through the order of learned Collector, we do not notice any perversity and apparent glaring error on the face of the order. In the light of the legal issue being settled in respect of compliance to be made under the provisions of Rules, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in rejecting the Writ 6 L.P.A.No.180.10 Petition. There is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal, the same is dismissed.

9. At this stage the learned counsel Mr. Chandole, submits that interim relief granted earlier by the Division Bench (Coram : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE JJ.] dated 11th June,2010 “directing the Collector not to pass any final order until further orders” be continued for a period of three weeks, as appellants desire to file petition in the Apex Court. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the prayer on the ground that in L.P.A.No. 212 of 2010, the proceedings of the disqualification was stayed by an order dated 13th July, 2010.

10. Considering the order passed in LPA No. 212 of 2010, we find that the appellants’ interest is protected. Therefore, request stands rejected. Sd/- Sd- [K.K.TATED, J.] [ NARESH H.PATIL J.] MTK/-