DHANANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. By this common judgment both the writ petitions are being disposed of.

(3.) The petitioners filed applications dated 3-2-2007 and 26-3-2007 before the Collector Osmanabad terming the applications to be under Section 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 (for short "the Act, 1965") and prayed for disqualifying the respondent Nos.3 Vijay and Mainoddin. Respondent No.3 Vijay filed his reply to the application. The main ground of the petitioners for seeking disqualification is that third child was born to respondent No.3 after the cut off date i.e. 12th September 2001. The provisions of Section 16(1)(k) of the Act, 1965 invite disqualification to remain as councillor. By separate orders dated 21-6-2007 the Collector Osmanabad rejected the applications filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that considering the provisions of Section 44 of the Act 1965 the ground of disqualification did not exist during the term of office of the respondents. The Collector has held that the petitioners ought to have filed petition under section 44 of the Act 1965 in stead under section 16. For these deficiencies the Collector decided to reject the applications.