SAHEBRAO Vs. COLLECTOR JALNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; the petitioners are challenging the judgment delivered by the respondent No. 1-Collector in Proceedings No. 1989 on 31st January, 2011, declaring them disqualified under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred to as "1986 Act). Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2011 is filed by another Councillor challenging that order of disqualifying him. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioners before this Court in both the matters are elected Councillors of Ambad Municipal Council, a body constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as "1965 Act"). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both Petitions are also the Councillors elected along with them. It is not in dispute that all these persons have been elected as Councillors as candidates belonging to political party namely Nationalist Congress party (N.C.P. ) in the year 2006. President of Municipal Council, Ambad was then elected for a period of two and half years. After that election and expiry of period, the election for subsequent President was held on 20th June, 2009. In that election, Mrs. Sulbha Kulkarni and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1125/2011 came to be elected as President and Vice President respectively. After that election, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Petition under section 6 of the 1986 Act alleging disobedience by all petitioners to the whip issued by the N.C.P. and contended that they voted in that election contrary to it. The petitioners appeared in those proceedings, filed their replies and after oral evidence and hearing arguments, the respondent No. 1 had passed order of disqualification, which came to be questioned in Writ Petition No. 8272 of 2010. Vide Judgment dated 29-10-2010, this Court remanded matter back for passing reasoned order after considering various binding precedents in the field. After remand, the respondent No. 1 heard the parties on 14-12-2010 and 22-12-2010 and the matter came to be reserved for orders. The impugned order is then passed on 31st January, 2011. There is dispute between the parties about the said date but it is not very material for narration of facts at this stage. The petitioners are again disqualified by the said order.

(2.) THIS Court issued notices on 17th February, 2011 and in that order also observed that if otherwise convenient to Court, the Court may dispose of the Petitions finally at the stage of admission. Prior to that respective Counsel were heard on 15-2-2011 and because of urgency pointed out, this Court permitted election to fill in vacancy in post of Vice President to go on but then directed that result thereof shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Those interim orders are then continued and operate even today.

(3.) NOMINATION paper of petitioner No. 2-Tamijabee was for the post of President and respondent No. 3-Kailash Bhore was her proposer. The petitioner No. 1 himself was proposer on nomination paper of Smt. Sodani on 16-6-2009 and had filled his own nomination paper for the post of Vice President. In view of material available on record according to learned Counsel the contention that the petitioners were not available in Ambad city from 14-6-2009 till 20-6-2009 is not supported. He further argues that this material also shows the absence of any official candidate during this period.