SAHEBRAO DASHRATHRAO PATOLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) The Petitioners before this Court are elected Councillors of Respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council, Lonar and they are aggrieved by common order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 holding that they have incurred disqualification by not submitting return of their election expenditure by 25.4.2009.

(3.) Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that provisions of Section 16(1D) of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Township Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality Act), confer discretion upon Respondent No. 2 to pass such order of disqualification, if it finds that the Councillor in default had no good reason or justification for his failure. His first contention is, said order does not disclose any application of mind in this respect. He points out that a show cause notice was served upon all elected Councillors by Respondent No. 2 and reply has been filed to it individually by the Petitioners. All Petitioners have pointed out that within a period of one month i.e. before 25.4.2009 they have given statement of accounts on plain paper to Returning Officer. The requirement of furnishing an affidavit was not known and after getting that knowledge, immediately necessary affidavit was furnished on 18.5.2009 by all the Petitioners. He, therefore, argues that these individual details are not looked into and there is no finding that compliance submitted by the Petitioners was not constituting a good reason or justification. He has relied upon the recent Judgment of the Hon Tile Apex Court in the case of (CCT v. Shukla and Bros., 2010 4 SCC 785) reported at particularly paras 10 & 12 to urge that such individual application of mind to the explanation furnished in fact shows the reasons for reaching a particular conclusion and, therefore, constitute soul of any judicial or quasi judicial order. The absence of reasons is breach of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, states that disqualification of all Petitioners must be quashed and set aside.