ARUN LAXMAN ASHAN Vs. JEEVAN C IDNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 3rd April, 2017 passed by respondent no.3 on application dated 21st March, 2017 filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 thereby reviewing the order dated 31st March, 2017 rejecting the application for registration of the Aghadi.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the office order dated 31st March, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and also order dated 3rd April, 2017 annexed at Exhibit-C to the petition and would submit that though the application for registration was already rejected by office order dated 31st March, 2017, the learned Additional Commissioner passed a fresh office order on 3rd April, 2017 thereby recalling the earlier order and granting registration of Aghadi. It is submitted by the learned counsel that no hearing was given by the learned Additional Commissioner before passing fresh office order on 3rd April, 2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the registration could not have been effected after 30 days from the date of election. In support of this petition, he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani & Anr. Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan & Ors, (2012) 2 SCC 794.

(3.) Mr. Bubna, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand invited my attention to Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member's Disqualification Act, 1986 and would submit that it is not in dispute that the Aghadi was already formed within 30 days by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 of the election held. He submits that under Rule 5, the commissioner was to maintain the register in form4 based on the information furnished under Rules 4 and 5 in relation to the councilor of the Municipal Party, Zilla Parishad Party or as the case may be the member of the Panchayat Samiti Party. He submits that the documents were accordingly submitted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of maintaining the said form 4 by the learned commissioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 9th August, 2011 in case of Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani & Anr. Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan & Ors in Writ Petition No. 5087 of 2011, holding that the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member's Disqualification Act, 1986 and the Rules 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member's Disqualification Rules, 1987 are not mandatory but are directory.