UDAYSINGH SARDARSINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of an order dated 1.2.2006 rendered by Collector, Jalna, holding that the petitioner herein is disqualified as member of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The disqualification is said to have been incurred by the petitioner U/s 3(2) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short, M.L.A.M.D. Act).

(2.) The petitioner was elected as councillor of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad from Andhaner Constituency of Kannad Taluka. He was fielded by Shivsana, as an official candidate of the political party, when he was so elected to work as a Zilla Parishad councillor, in February 2002. He continued to represent the Constituency in the house of Zilla Parishad as a councillor of Shivsena party. In September 2004, he contested election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Kannad Constituency as an "Independent Candidate". He was defeated in the said election of the Legislative Assembly. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 made reference Petition seeking declaration that the petitioner had incurred disqualification U/s 3(1)(a) of the M.L.A.M.D. Act. The Respondent No.5 averred that when the petitioner had contested election for the Legislative Assembly as an independent candidate then he had voluntarily given up his membership of the Zilla Parishad party i.e. Shivsena political party. The Respondent No.5 further averred that the petitioner had given interview to the Press Conference on 17.9.2004 and declared therein that he had voluntarily given up the membership of the Shivsena party. The petitioner by his statement in the Press Conference as well as by his conduct of contesting the election for Legislative Assembly, voluntarily gave up membership of the Shivsena party and thus the Zilla Parishad party as such, incurred disqualification. The Respondent No.5 filed xerox copies of the three newspapers dated 18.9.2004 in which a news item was published regarding statement of the petitioner of his resignation of membership of Shivsena party. The Respondent No.5 alleged that he is leader of Shivsena party in Aurangabad and as such was competent to make the reference. The reference was duly registered as required under Rule 6 of the M.L.A.M.D. Rules. A copy of the reference petition alongwith the copies of the news items were served on the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the reference petition. The petitioner admitted that he had contested election of the Legislative Assembly in September 2004 as an independent candidate from "Kannad Constituency" and was defeated. He denied, however, that he had voluntarily given up membership of Shivsena party in the Zilla Parishad. He questioned authority of the Respondent No.5 to make a reference under the M.L.A.M.D. Act. He submitted that Shivsena political party was not registered as Zilla Parishad party or a political party with the Collector and due to non-registration thereof he could not be regarded as councillor of Shivsena political party and hence, did not incur any disqualification to remain as member of the House in Zilla Parishad. He further submitted that the Respondent No.5 is not a party leader of Shivsena in Zilla Parishad and hence was incompetent to file the reference petition. He further submitted that he had not made any statement, whatsoever, in any Press Conference dt.17.9.2004 to the effect that he had voluntarily given up membership of Shivsena party in Zilla Parishad. He further filed a separate application and urged the Collector to frame preliminary issues regarding maintainability of the reference petition. He submitted that there was non-compliance of Rule 6 and 7 of the M.L.A.M.D. Rules. He sought dismissal of the reference petition on merits. The Collector, Aurangabad held that the application for framing of preliminary issues could be decided alongwith the main petition. The petitioner challenged the procedure adopted by the Collector, Aurangabad. The inquiry into the reference petition was, however, transferred to the Collector, Jalna in accordance with the statement made before this Court by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The said earlier writ petition No.2428/2005 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court. The Collector, Jalna, issued afresh notices to the parties. The Collector heard the concerned parties and reached conclusion that the petitioner did incur disqualification U/s 3(1)(a) of the M.L.A.M.D. Act. This order of the Collector, Jalna, is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.