Case Note & Summary
Three elected municipal councilors of Municipal Council, Gondia, filed writ petitions against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents challenging the jurisdiction and conduct of the Additional Collector in disqualification proceedings initiated against them under the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The disqualification petitions were originally filed before the Collector, Gondia, who transferred them to the Additional Collector in April 2013. The transfer order lacked an outward number and precise date. The Additional Collector proceeded with the hearings, framed charges, recorded evidence, and rejected the petitioners' objection regarding jurisdiction on 13.12.2013. The petitioners, alleging bias, hostile attitude, and undue haste, filed applications before the Divisional Commissioner and Collector seeking transfer of proceedings to another authority. Failing to obtain relief, they approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari or mandamus to transfer the proceedings and stay further proceedings. They contended that under the 1986 Act, only the Collector is the competent authority, and the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction. They relied on Manikchand Hiralal Kasliwal v. Arvind Vithalrao Sawalapurkar to argue that express notification was required for the Additional Collector to exercise such power. They further argued that the Additional Collector, joined in personal capacity, did not file a personal affidavit, and adverse inference should be drawn. The respondents maintained that the transfer was valid under Section 13(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and that State notifications authorised the Additional Collector. They pointed out that the petitioners participated in the proceedings without any objection and only raised the jurisdictional challenge after closure of their case, as a delaying tactic. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the Collector's power to transfer proceedings to the Additional Collector under the Land Revenue Code was well established, and the lack of outward number or precise date did not vitiate the transfer order. The court noted that charges were framed on an unscheduled date but no prejudice was caused, and the petitioners had accepted the position by appearing and filing a pursis. The allegations of bias were not supported by contemporaneous objections and were denied in the reply filed by the Additional Collector. The court held that mere apprehension of bias, without specific instances, was insufficient to order a transfer. It further held that the petitioners' conduct in participating without protest and later challenging jurisdiction was not sustainable. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated, allowing the Additional Collector to give effect to the final orders passed in the disqualification proceedings.
Headnote
A) Disqualification Proceedings — Jurisdiction of Additional Collector — Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 — Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Section 13(3) — The Act designates the Collector as the competent authority, but the Collector may transfer proceedings to the Additional Collector under Section 13(3) of the Land Revenue Code. Notifications dated 24.03.1967 and 22.07.1986 further authorize the Additional Collector. Petitioners, having participated without objection, could not later challenge jurisdiction. Held that the objection was rightly rejected. (Paras 3, 11, 12) B) Bias and Mala Fides — Reasonable Apprehension — Transfer of Proceedings — Petitioners alleged bias and undue haste in the conduct of proceedings, but failed to raise contemporaneous objections; they even filed a pursis closing their case. Mere allegations, especially when denied in reply, do not warrant transfer. Held that no grounds for transfer or inference of bias were made out. (Paras 4, 5, 10, 13) C) Adverse Inference — Non-filing of Personal Affidavit — The Additional Collector, joined in personal capacity, did not file a personal affidavit; however, the official reply denied all allegations of bias. Held that in the absence of specific rebuttable averments, adverse inference could not be drawn. (Paras 4, 6) D) Transfer Order — Validity — Procedural Irregularity — The transfer order lacked outward number and precise date, but such irregularity does not vitiate the order when the fact of transfer is admitted and no prejudice is shown. Held that the transfer was legal and valid. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to hear disqualification proceedings under the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986; Whether the proceedings before the Additional Collector were vitiated by bias or mala fides; Whether the transfer of proceedings from the Collector to the Additional Collector was valid.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; the Additional Collector allowed to give effect to final orders passed in the disqualification proceedings.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act
- 1986 confers jurisdiction on Collector
- transfer to Additional Collector under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 Section 13[3] is valid
- mere apprehension of bias not sufficient without specific proof
- adverse inference for non-filing of personal affidavit not drawn as allegations were denied in reply
- challenge to jurisdiction must be raised promptly and not after participating in proceedings
