ASHOK PATIL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SATARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER passed by the Collector, Satara on 4th September, 1998 in Petition No. 4260 of 1997 disqualifying the petitioners under Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder from their membership in the Karad Municipal Council is impugned in the present petition.

(2.) WE have perused the order which is impugned. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties at considerable length and we find that the present petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, does not merit consideration.

(3.) PETITIONERS have been elected in the election held on 1st December, 1996 having been sponsored by the Nagar Vikas Aghadi. Elections for electing the President of the Municipal Council were held on 12th December, 1997. Prior to that a meeting was convened on 18th October, 1997 which was attended amongst others all the 11 elected members belonging to Nagar Vikas Aghadi. In an unanimous Resolution passed in the meeting to which petitioners were parties. Dr. Erram and Mr. Pawaskar were authorised to issue whip. Prior to the election of the President scheduled on 12th December, 1997, a meeting of the Aghadi was convened on 6th December, 1997, where a whip was issued directing its members to attend the meeting of 12th December, 1997 and vote for Mr. Ravindra Maruti Shinde who had been sponsored by the Aghadi as its candidate. In the meeting of 12th December, 1997, petitioner No. 4 contested for the post of President by opposing the official candidature of Mr. Ravindra Maruti Shinde and was declared elected. Petitioners in violation of the whip issued by the Aghadi voted in favour of petitioner No. 4. Similarly a General Body Meeting was scheduled to be held on 15th December, 1997 where certain important Resolutions were to be tabled. Prior to the meeting, a meeting of the Aghadi was convened on 10th December, 1997 where a whip was issued giving directions in regard to the pattern of voting for the Resolutions which were to be tabled on 15th December, 1997. Petitioners in defiance of the whip have voted to the contrary. Mr. Pawaskar who was a party to the issue of whip thereupon moved the Collector under section 3 (1) (a), (b) of the Disqualification Act and by the impugned order Collector has declared petitioners as disqualified. The same is impugned herein. A perusal of section 7 of the Act would show that decision of the Collector in respect of disqualification has been made final and as long as the order is not shown to suffer from the vice of being unreasonable, arbitrary or being perverse, the same cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. In the present case there is no breach of rules of natural justice. The order has been passed by the Collector while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. We find that the reasons given by the Collector are cogent and germane for the decision of the controversy between the parties.