BHAGAT GOPALDAS THAKRANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in all these 3 Writ Petitions by the elected Municipal Councilors of Municipal Council, Gondia is identical. Three petitioners in these three petitions seek a direction to respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner and respondent no.3 Collector to decide applications at Annexures H and I, filed by them seeking transfer of matters against them from respondent no.4 Additional Collector to Collector, Gondia or any other Authority in Gondia District on account of loss of faith. Other prayer is for a writ to transfer those proceedings and till then to stay further proceedings in Disqualification Petition No.45/2012 (New No.36/9/1213).

(2.) This Court has while issuing notice in the matter on 17.01.2014 heard the Counsel for caveator (Respondent no.5) and stayed the declaration of any order by respondent no.4 Additional Collector. On 12.03.2014 this Court permitted respondent no.4 to pronounce his orders with a direction that said order shall not be given effect to till 18.03.2014. Considering the controversy involved in the matters, by consent of parties, Rule issued was made returnable forthwith on 18.03.2014 and parties were heard finally and writ petitions have been closed for judgment.

(3.) Shri J.T. Gilda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the transfer of matter from respondent no.3 Collector to respondent no.4 Additional Collector is itself bad in law, as under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1986 Act" for short), Collector is the recognized and only competent Authority. He has invited attention to orders / communication by which the Collector transferred the matter to Additional Collector pointing out that it does not have any outward number or date also. He contends that this fact assumes importance because of allegations of malafides and bias by petitioners against respondent no.4. Without prejudice to these contentions, he invites attention to provisions of Section 13[3] of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to urge that the said provision, in the background of 1986 Act, can at the most to be viewed as a general provision and in absence of any express notification by the State Government in favour of respondent no.4, respondent no.4 cannot entertain and deal with the disqualification proceedings. Support is being sought from a judgment in case of Manikchand Hiralal Kasliwal .vrs. Arvind Vithalrao Sawalapurkar, 1994 2 MhLJ 1623, to buttress the contention.