DILIP DEVDATTA JEJANI Vs. SATATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.

(2.) THE petitioner by the instant petition questions the legality and validity of the order passed by the respondent. No. 2 State Government dated 24-4-2003 at Annexure 'f. The said order is purported to have been passed in exercise of powers under section 42 (3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 3, a defeated candidate in municipal election.

(3.) THE petitioner was elected as a municipal councillor to Municipal Council, wadsa Desaiganj in December, 2001 as a candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party whereas the respondent No. 3 had contested the election as a candidate for the rival party and had lost the said election. The third respondent filed an appeal before the Minister for State, Department of Urban Development, mantralaya making a complaint therein to the effect that the petitioner is a member of joint family of his mother and the petitioner's mother who is owner of a rice mill situated at Desaiganj, Wadsa had effected some illegal construction by making an encroachment on Government land which caused obstruction to the public way. To put it in short, it was the grievance made by the respondent No. 3 that as a consequence of the said alleged illegal construction, the petitioner has incurred a disqualification as he has constructed, either himself or through his dependent, an illegal and unauthorised structure violating the provisions of the Act or the Maharashtra Regional and Town planning Act or the Rules or bye-laws framed under the said Act. It was alleged by the third respondent before the second respondent that the petitioner is directly or indirectly responsible for helping in the capacity as such councillor in carrying out the illegal and unauthorised construction. As referred to hereinabove, on the said complaint, the second respondent has passed an order declaring the petitioner as having incurred a disqualification and has further proceeded to pass an order disqualifying the petitioner for a period of five years from holding the office of councillor as is provided under sub-section (4) of section 42.