KEDABAI SHANTARAM JADHAV Vs. KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally Senior Adv. Shri Dixit with Adv. Shri Bachate, for petitioners & Senior Adv. Shri Shah with Adv. Shri Amol Sawant, for respective respondent 1. Learned AGP present in court has appeared for Respondent 2 Collector. Looking to the nature of the controversy, matters are heard finally with consent by making Rule returnable forthwith.

(2.) Challenge in all these writ petitions under Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is to identical notices dated 3/1/2011 issued by respondent no. 2 Collector calling upon the respective petitioner to file additional written statement in defence if any, and to state whether they desire to be heard on additional points. The notices communicate to them the charge, statement of imputations, list of documents & list of witnesses in support thereof as per requirement of Rule 7(6) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 & Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986, referred to as 1987 Rules & 1986 Act hereafter. Those proceedings are initiated by respective respondent 1 seeking their disqualification under 1986 Act. Some procedural lapses committed by respondent 2 Collector have been assailed by the petitioners earlier unsuccessfully before this Court and said challenge is now pending in SLP before the Hon. Apex Court. It is not in dispute that Hon. Apex Court has restrained respondent 2 Collector from passing final orders.

(3.) Shri Dixit, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the proceedings were already closed for final judgment by Collector on 3/4/2010. It was reopened again on 14/9/2010 because of application moved by respondent 1 pointing out to Collector that he has not framed the charges and requesting him to frame the same. He states that though the application appears to have been moved on 4/5/2010, there is no corresponding ordersheet and after 3/4/2010, next order-sheet is written on 14/9/2010. According to him whether procedure is mandatory or directory is pending before the Hon. Apex Court. Application filed belatedly was not tenable and respondent 1 did not move it bona fide. To show that it was filed immediately, date 4/5/2010 was put on it. Attention is invited to plea raised in paragraphs 32 & 33 of the memo of writ petition to urge that it was heard behind their back & orders framing charge, statements of imputation etc. are passed without extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to them.