Full Judgment Text
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD BENCH BENCH AT AURANGABAD AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3744 OF 2008 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3744 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3744 OF 2008
Manoj Bansilal Biyani,
R/o Professor Colony,
Bhusawal. PETITIONER PETITIONER PETITIONER
VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS
1. Sameer Krishnadhan Karr,
R/o Vishnu Industrial Estate,
Varangaon Road, 15 Block,
Bhusawal.
2. The Collector,
Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr.
S.P. Shah, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
[CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [CORAM: [CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED : 2nd May, 2009 DATE DATE OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED : 2nd May, 2009 OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED : 2nd May, 2009
DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 8th May, 2009 DATE DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 8th May, 2009 OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 8th May, 2009
-------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT : JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT : :
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges
order rendered by learned Collector, Jalgaon, on
application No. 9/2007 whereby petition filed by the
petitioner under section 3 (1) (a) of the Maharashtra
Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Act, 1986
and under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority
Members’ Disqualification Rules, 1987 came to be
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:40 :::
(2)
rejected.
2. There took place election for the posts of
councillor of Municipal Council, Bhusawal on 19th &
20th November, 2006. The petitioner claims to be the
President of a pre-poll coalition called " Shahar
Bachav Aghadi ". He asserted that said " Aghadi " had
set up candidates in the municipal elections by
issuing necessary "A-B" forms to the concerned
candidates. He further asserted that the respondent
No. 1 submitted the nomination form from ward No. 16
as a candidate of the said Aghadi. The respondent No.
1 was declared elected from the said ward on
21-11-2006. The respondent No. 1 allegedly filed an
affidavit dated 05-03-2007 in writ petition No.
853/2007 which was filed by one Ashokkumar Agasdas
Maidasani. In his affidavit, the respondent No. 1
stated that he was not at all part and parcel of any
Aghadi , whatsoever, and had no connection with the
" Shahar Bachav Aghadi, Bhusawal ". The petitioner
submitted a petition before the learned District
Collector, Jalgaon , seeking disqualification of the
respondent No.1 due to his subsequent misconduct of
the betrayal to the Aghadi .
3. The respondent No. 1 resisted the petition on
various grounds. He contended that the petition was
not duly verified as provided under Rule 6 (4) of the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:40 :::
(3)
Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification
Rules, 1987 (for short, "the MLAMD Rules"). He also
alleged that the petition was untenable because the
necessary affidavit in support of the petition was not
filed. The respondent No. 1 contended that he had
contested the election as an independent candidate and
was elected as such from the ward No. 16. He further
asserted that the documents filed alongwith the
petition were not duly and legally verified and,
therefore, could not be taken into account. Thus, he
denied that he was a candidate set up by the " Shahar
Bachav Aghadi ". He asserted that the petition was
liable to be dismissed on preliminary grounds due to
infringement of the Rule 6 (4) and Rule-7 of the MLAMD
Rules.
4. The petitioner lateron submitted a duly
verified petition alongwith a separate affidavit on
14-09-2007. He filed an application to consider the
amended petition and the affidavit by substituting the
same in place of the original petition.
5. The learned Collector heard the parties to the
petition. The learned Collector held that the
compliance of Rule 6 (4) and Rule 7 of the MLAMD Rules
was not made by the petitioner. He held that these
are mandatory provisions and the non-compliance of the
Rules, in any respect, would result in dismissal of
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:40 :::
(4)
the petition. He referred to "Sadashiv H. Patil v. Sadashiv H. Patil v. Sadashiv H. Patil v.
Vithal D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mah.L.J. 313 Vithal Vithal D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mah.L.J. 313 D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mah.L.J. 313
(SC), "Mirza Kadir Beg Rasul Beg v. District (SC), (SC), "Mirza Kadir Beg Rasul Beg v. District "Mirza Kadir Beg Rasul Beg v. District
Collector and others" 2003 (4) BCR 672 Collector Collector and others" 2003 (4) BCR 672 and "Hariharrao and others" 2003 (4) BCR 672 Hariharrao Hariharrao
Vishwasrao Bhosikar v. Datta Anandrao Pawar and Vishwasrao Vishwasrao Bhosikar v. Datta Anandrao Pawar and Bhosikar v. Datta Anandrao Pawar and
others" 2006 (1) ALL MR 702 others" others" 2006 (1) ALL MR 702, in order to reach 2006 (1) ALL MR 702
conclusion that the strict compliance with the said
Rules is necessary. The learned Collector, therefore,
held that the petition was defective and as such, was
liable to be dismissed. Thus, the disqualification
reference petition was disposed of/dismissed vide the
impugned order.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Clinching question is whether minor defects in
the manner of verification of the reference petition
filed under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’
Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short, "the MLAMD
Act") and non-filing of the affidavit could be
regarded the major and incurable procedural defects
which could entail dismissal of the election reference
petition or the same could be regarded as curable
defects. The next question is whether the learned
Collector failed to properly exercise his discretion
to allow substitution of the amended petition with due
verification of the pleadings and the affidavit dated
14-09-2007 in the place of the original reference
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:40 :::
(5)
petition as sought by the petitioner and, thereby,
committed patent error while rejecting the reference
petition.
8. Before I embark upon scrutiny of the rival
submissions, let it be noted that the question whether
the respondent No. 1 had voluntarily given up his
membership of the " Shahar Bachav Aghadi " and thereby
incurred disqualification as provided under section 3
(1) (a) of the MLAMD Act is not considered by the
learned Collector on merits. The election reference
petition pertains to post-poll conduct of the
respondent No. 1. Broadly stated, two (2) types of
misconduct can be contemplated. The pre-poll
misconduct, in any manner like adoption of corrupt
practices, spreading hatred between two (2) religious
groups, seeking votes on basis of caste/religion, etc.
are covered by the provisions of the Representation of
the People Act, 1950. The post-poll misconduct also
was required to be redressed. Consequently, Xth
Schedule was added to the Constitution by 52nd
Amendment Act, 1985 under Articles 102 (2) and 191
(2). The Xth Schedule pertains to provisions
pertaining to disqualification on ground of defection,
etc. The local laws like the MLAMD Act and the MLAMD
Rules framed thereunder are pari materia with the
provisions contained in the Xth Schedule and the Rules
framed under section 8 of the Xth Schedule. The
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:40 :::
(6)
Chairman or the Speaker of the House is empowered
under section 8 (1) of the Xth Schedule to frame Rules
for giving effect to the provisions of the Schedule.
The comparison of the provisions of the MLAMD Act and
the MLAMD Rules must be, therefore, made with the
provisions contained in the Xth Schedule and the Rules
framed thereunder for the purpose of consideration of
the Reference seeking disqualification of an elected
municipal councillor. In other words, the comparison
of the provisions contained in the MLAMD Act and the
MLAMD Rules cannot be made with the provisions
contained in the Representation of the People Act,
1950 which deals with the issues pertaining to
pre-poll misconduct of a candidate.
9. Mr. Shah seeks to rely on "Dr. Mahachandra Dr. Mahachandra Dr. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council Prasad Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
and others" (2004) 8 SCC 747 and and others" (2004) 8 SCC 747. The Apex Court others" (2004) 8 SCC 747
interpreted the Rules pertaining to Bihar Legislative
Council Members (Disqualification on Ground of
Defection) Rules, 1994 and held that Rules 6 and 7
thereof were directory in nature. The Apex Court held
that the omission to file an affidavit neither
rendered petition invalid nor did it affect the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman to initiate
proceedings to determine the question of
disqualification of the members of the House. Mr.
Shah would submit that in view of this authority of
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(7)
the Apex Court, the Division Bench judgement of this
Court in "Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another v. Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another v. Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another v.
State of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. 214 State State of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. 214, of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. 214
could be regarded as per incuriam . He would submit
that the learned Collector failed to properly
appreciate the import of the relevant Rules and to
classify the defects which could be regarded as
curable and which could be regarded as non-curable.
He seeks to distinguish case of "Sadashiv H. Patil Sadashiv H. Patil Sadashiv H. Patil
vs. Vithal D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. vs. vs. Vithal D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. Vithal D. Teke and others" 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.
312. The learned Senior Counsel further contended 312 312
that substitution of the duly verified petition and
the affidavit could be allowed in as much as there is
no time-limit prescribed for filing of the reference
petition and the substitution petition and the
affidavit could be regarded as afresh petition. He
pointed out that the learned Collector did not
consider the amendment which was purportedly sought
much before passing of the impugned order. Per
contra, Mr. Dhorde supports the impugned judgement.
He submits that in the teeth of Division Bench
Judgement of this Court on the same question and the
dictum of the Apex Court in "Sadashiv H. Patil Sadashiv H. Patil" Sadashiv H. Patil
(supra), the impugned order is quite sustainable.
10. So far as the fact situation is concerned, it
may be noticed that the reference petition filed by
the petitioner was verified by him on solemn
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(8)
affirmation. He stated that the contents of the para
Nos. 1 to 14 were true and correct to the best of his
knowledge and information. The only defect was that
each of the paragraph of the petition was not
separately verified on solemn affirmation. He did not
state which of the paragraphs were based on his
personal knowledge and which of the paragraphs were
based upon information received by him. The
verification was of omnibus nature. Still, it was
there at the bottom of the reference petition. It is
explicit that he rectified the mistakes by filing a
separate amended petition and duly verified the
petition on 14-09-2007 alongwith an affidavit. The
learned Collector did not pass any order on the
application seeking amendment and substitution of the
duly verified petition alongwith the affidavit.
11. In "Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke and Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke and Sadashiv H. Patil v. Vithal D. Teke and
others" 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 312 (SC) others" others" 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 312 (SC), the controversy 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 312 (SC)
related to alleged disqualification of certain members
of the Municipal Council on ground of defection. The
Collector had declared the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
in that case as disqualified councillors under the
provisions of MLAMD Act. The Bombay High Court
allowed their writ petitions and had quashed the order
passed by the Collector. The Apex Court observed :
"Looking at the penal consequences flowing
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(9)
from an elected Councillor being subjected to
disqualification and its repercussion on the
functioning of the local body as also the city
or township governed by the local body the
provisions have to be construed strictly. A
rigorous compliance with the provisions of the
Act and the Rules must be shown to have taken
place while dealing with a reference under
Section 7 of the Act."
The question involved in the given case was whether
the whips issued, on the basis of which the
disqualification was sought to be spelt out, did
satisfy requirement of section 3 (1) (b) of the MLAMD
Act. The Apex Court did not, however, deal with
technical compliance of the Rules 6 and 7 of the MLAMD
Rules. It is the general observation of the Apex
Court that the provisions of the Act and the Rules
were required to be strictly complied with in view of
the consequence which was likely to befall on the
elected councillor as well as the constituency
represented by him. There cannot be duality of
opinion that the relevant provisions of the Act and
the Rules are required to be strictly adhered to.
12. In "Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & another
v. State of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. v. v. State of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R. State of Maharashtra & others" 2007 (6) Bom.C.R.
214, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to 214 214
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(10)
consider the import of Rules 6 and 7 of the MLAMD
Rules. The Division Bench held that any and every
non-compliance of Rule 6 of the MLAMD Rules would meet
with only one fate, namely, dismissal of reference
petition by the Commissioner or Collector, as the case
may be. There cannot be any doubt that the Division
Bench judgement covers the issue involved in the
context of interpretation of the Rules 6 and 7 of the
MLAMD Rules. It is pertinent, however, to mention
here that the observations of the Apex Court in "Dr. Dr. Dr.
Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Mahachandra Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar
Legislative Council and others" (2004) 8 SCC 747 Legislative Legislative Council and others" (2004) 8 SCC 747 were Council and others" (2004) 8 SCC 747
not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. It
is explicit that in "Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin & Sayyad Tahir Hussain Mainuddin &
another" (supra), there is no reference to the case of another another
"Dr. Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh" (supra) and the issue Mahachandra Prasad Singh
was not examined in the light of observations in "Dr. Dr. Dr.
Mahachandra Prasad Singh Mahachandra Mahachandra Prasad Singh" (supra). It follows, Prasad Singh
therefore, that if the case of "Dr. Mahachandra Dr. Mahachandra Dr. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh Prasad Prasad Singh" (supra) is held to cover the field, then Singh
the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court will
supercede the view of the Division Bench of this
Court.
13. As stated before, the comparison could be
between the provisions of the Xth Schedule and the
provisions of the MLAMD Act and the MLAMD Rules. The
Division Bench of this Court seems to have compared
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(11)
the provisions of Section 81 and 83 of the
Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Rules 6 and
7 of the MLAMD Rules. It is observed :
"If we are to consider the two schemes
together i.e. sections 81 to 83 on one side
and read with section 86 of Representation of
People Act, and Rules 6 and 7 on the other
side, there is one more striking difference.
On reference to section 86 (1) of
Representation of People Act, 1951, it is
evident that non-compliances stand classified
into two groups. Non compliance of sections
81, 82 and 117 invite the High Court to
dismiss an election petition, but for non
compliance of section 83, the High Court,
while considering election petition, is not
required to dismiss the same. Thus,
Representation of People Act classifies the
defects in the election petition into two
groups i.e. curable and not curable. On
reference to language of sub-rule (2) of Rule
7, it is evident that none of the defects in
the reference petition or in other words non
compliances of Rule 6 are pardonable. any and
every non compliance of Rule 6 meets with only
one fate i.e. dismissal of the reference
petition either by the Commissioner or the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(12)
Collector, as the case may be."
The Division Bench obviously did not compare the
provisions of the Xth Schedule, which are pari materia
with MLAMD Act and the MLAMD Rules. This could be the
reason for reaching the conclusion that each and every
non-compliance of the Rules 6 and 7 of the MLAMD Rules
would lead to the inevitable result, namely,
dismissal of the reference petition.
14. In "Dr. Dr. Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Mahachandra Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Prasad Singh v.
Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others Chairman, Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and others" Bihar Legislative Council and others
(supra), the Apex Court observed :
"The purpose and object of the Rules is to
facilitate the job of the Chairman in
discharging his duties and responsibilities
conferred upon him by Paragraph 6,namely, for
resolving any dispute as to whether a member
of the House has become subject to
disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
The Rules being in the domain of procedure,
are intended to facilitate the holding of
inquiry and not to frustrate or obstruct the
same by introduction of innumerable
technicalities. Being subordinate
legislation, the Rules cannot make any
provision which may have the effect of
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(13)
curtailing the content and scope of the
substantive provision, namely, the Tenth
Schedule. There is no provision in the Tenth
(Xth) Schedule to the effect that until a
petition which is signed and verified in the
manner laid down in CPC for verification of
pleadings is made to the Chairman or the
Speaker of the House, he will not get the
jurisdiction to give a decision as to whether
a member of the House has become subject to
disqualification under the Schedule......."
"There cannot be any dispute that sub-rules
(1), (2) and (3) of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC were
complied with. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has, however, laid great emphasis
on the fact that Shri Salman Rageev had not
filed any affidavit in support of his petition
and consequently the provisions of sub-rule
(4) of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC which provides that
the person verifying the pleadings shall also
furnish an affidavit in support of his
pleadings were not complied with. For the
reasons stated earlier, we are of the opinion
that the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 are
directory in nature and on account of
non-filing of an affidavit as required by
sub-rule (4) of Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(14)
petition would not be rendered invalid nor
would the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Chairman on its basis be adversely affected or
rendered bad in any manner. A similar
contention was raised before a Bench presided
by Venkatachaliah, C.J. in "Ravi S.Naik v. Ravi S.Naik v. Ravi S.Naik v.
Union of India" Union Union of India" but was repelled." of India"
15. Similarly, it may be gathered from the
provisions of the MLAMD Act that there is no provision
in the Act to the effect that until a petition which
is signed and duly verified in the manner laid down in
the Civil Procedure Code for verification of pleadings
is made to the Collector/Commissioner, he will not get
jurisdiction to render decision about disqualification
under the Act. The procedural cobwebs are not meant
to frustrate the object for which the enactment has
been made. The procedure is in the aid of the
authority and in order to facilitate smooth working of
the quasi-judicial nature. Mr. Dhorde would submit
that in view of section 10 of the MLAMD Act, the Rules
will have overriding effect and, therefore, compliance
thereof is mandatory. He invited my attention to the
expression "shall" as used in Rule 6 (4) of the MLAMD
Rules. He would submit that the intention of the
Legislature is to make the Rules mandatory. He also
invited my attention to "Shridhar s/o Ram Dular v. Shridhar s/o Ram Dular v. Shridhar s/o Ram Dular v.
Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others" (AIR 1990 S.C. 307) Nagar Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others" (AIR 1990 S.C. 307) Palika, Jaunpur and others" (AIR 1990 S.C. 307)
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(15)
and submitted that if at all the view of the Division
Bench is unacceptable, this Court should not travel
beyond the same in view so as to maintain the judicial
discipline.
16. In "F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc. v. Singora and F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc. v. Singora and F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc. v. Singora and
others, etc." (AIR 1991 S.C. 1557) others, others, etc." (AIR 1991 S.C. 1557), the Apex Court etc." (AIR 1991 S.C. 1557)
held that mere defect in verification of the Election
Petition cannot be fatal to its maintainability. The
Apex Court in "Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (in both Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (in both Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (in both
appeals) v. Roop Singh Rathore and others" (AIR 1964 appeals) appeals) v. Roop Singh Rathore and others" (AIR 1964 v. Roop Singh Rathore and others" (AIR 1964
S.C. 1545) S.C. S.C. 1545) held that defect in verification in the 1545)
Election Petition can be removed in accordance with
the principles of the Civil Procedure Code. It was
held as a curable defect.
17. Having given anxious consideration to the
submissions of Mr. Dhorde, I find it difficult to
countenance his argument. First, the mere use of
expression "shall" in Rule 6 (4) will not make it
mandatory. For, unless there is penal consequence
provided for, mere such expression does not ordinarily
make the Rule mandatory. There is no question of
taking any diametrically opposite view from the view
of the Division Bench of this Court. What I think is
that considering the dictum of the Apex Court in "Dr. Dr. Dr.
Mahachandra Prasad Singh Mahachandra Mahachandra Prasad Singh" (supra), the view taken by Prasad Singh (supra), the view taken by (supra), the view taken by
the Division Bench stands eclipsed. I am bound by the
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(16)
precedent handed down by the Apex Court in view of
Article 141 of the Constitution. Mr. Dhorde submits
that the judgement of the Division Bench and that of
the Apex Court in "Sadashiv H. Patil Sadashiv H. Patil" (supra) are the Sadashiv H. Patil
direct authorities on the concerned provisions of the
MLAMD Act and, therefore, they should be followed. So
far as "Sadashiv H. Patil Sadashiv H. Patil" (supra) is concerned, Sadashiv H. Patil
there was no issue involved regarding the nature of
Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the MLAMD Rules directly and
substantially involved in the said matter. I mean to
say whether Rule 6 (4) is directory or mandatory was
not the issue directly involved and contested. As
against this, the judgement of the Apex Court in "Dr. Dr. Dr.
Mahachandra Prasad Singh Mahachandra Mahachandra Prasad Singh" (supra) deals with pari Prasad Singh
materia provisions though the Rules were the inhouse
Rules framed by the Chairman of the Bihar Legislative
Council. That hardly makes any difference. One
cannot be oblivious of the provision of the rule 7 (5)
of the MLAMD Rules, sub-rule (5) reads as follows :
"(5) The procedure which shall be followed by
the Commissioner, or, as the case may be,
Collector, for determining any question and
for the purpose of making a preliminary
inquiry under sub-rule (4) shall be the same
as the procedure followed by the respective
Committees of Privileges of both the Houses of
the State Legislature."
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(17)
In other words, the inhouse Procedure as provided
under the Rules framed by the Legislative Assembly or
by the Chairman of the House or the Speaker, as the
case may be, are required to be adhered to during the
enquiry since they are the pari materia provisions.
18. Mr. Dhorde would further submit that the use
of non-obstinate clause in Section 10 of the MLAMD Act
shows that overriding effect has been given to the
provisions of the MLAMD Rules. He seeks to rely on
"Vishin Vishin N. Khanchandani and another v. Vidya Vishin N. Khanchandani and another v. Vidya N. Khanchandani and another v. Vidya
Lachmandas Khanchandani and another" (AIR 2000 SC Lachmandas Lachmandas Khanchandani and another" (AIR 2000 SC Khanchandani and another" (AIR 2000 SC
2747). There is no duality of the opinion that the 2747) 2747)
Rules will have overriding effect regardless of
inconsistencies therewith contained in any other law
for the time being in force. The question of
overriding effect of the Rules is, however, not
involved in the present matter. They are not required
to be compared with any other Rules as such so as to
locate whether in view of inconsistency, Rule 6 (4)
has to be given overriding effect. The purposive
interpretation of the Rules would make it amply clear
that Rule 6 (4) is of directory nature. It need not
be reiterated that there are certain curable defects
and some of the defects are incurable. The defective
verification of the petition could be cured. It is
simply a procedural defect. The lis in such a matter
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::
(18)
is between the competent authority viz. Collector or
Commissioner, as the case may be, and the member
against whom charge of disqualification is made
through the Reference Petition. Therefore, the
Collector or Commissioner may permit rectification of
the curable defects. In this view of the matter, the
Reference Petition should not have been dismissed by
the Collector. This is more so when another amended
petition alongwith affidavit and attested documents
was also presented much before the impugned order has
been rendered.
19. For the foregoing reasons, I have no
hesitation in holding that the impugned order is quite
unsustainable. Hence, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed. The Reference Petition
stands restored and the petitioner be allowed to
rectify the procedural deficiencies viz. verification
of the petition, filing of the affidavit and attested
documents as sought. The Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No costs.
[ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] V.R. KINGAONKAR ] V.R. KINGAONKAR ]
JUDGE JUDGE
JUDGE
NPJ/ WP3744-08
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:50:41 :::