KINGAONKAR, J.

( 1 ) RULE.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith so as to decide both the petitions at the stage of admission.

( 3 ) BY these petitions, the Petitioners, who are the district Party President and elected member of shivsena Party, seek to challenge the order dated 28th march, 2006 passed by Respondent No. 29 - Collector giving recognition to group of Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 as an independent group called "swabhimani Sindhudurg vikas Gat" in Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg.

( 4 ) A brief resume of the facts leading to the present controversy may be stated. Sindhudurg Zilla Parishad elections were held in January / February, 2002. It appears that Shivsena and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had formed Pre-Poll alliance and contested the said election on symbols of respective parties and as per nomination of their candidates. Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 were nominated as candidates of Shivsena Party and were elected. In all, 30 candidates of Shivsena Party were elected in the said Zilla Parishad elections and out of them group of Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 is major chunk. The Respondent No. 14 - Ashok Sawant submitted an application dated 17th March, 2006 to the respondent No. 29 - Collector for recognition of "swabhimani Sindhudurg Vikas Gat" comprising of respondent Nos. 1 to 28 as a separate entity in the house of Zilla Parishad. Respondent No. 29 - collector, by passing the impugned order dated 28th march, 2006 (Exh. "e"-pg. 58) granted the request and recognised them as a separate entity (group) and directed to take entry thereof in the concerned record.

( 5 ) THE Petitioners case is that they were not heard by the Respondent No. 29 - Collector prior to giving recognition to the separate group, as required under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members disqualification Rules, 1987 (for short "disqualification Rules") and hence the impugned order is bad in law. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 could not be recognised as a separate group unless there is split in the original party i. e. Shivsena. The respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have filed their requisition for convening a special meeting to consider "no confidence Motion" against Vice President Shri S. P. Ogle, but they have no legal right to participate in such a meeting inasmuchas they have incurred disqualification by formation of a separate group. The Respondent No. 29 ought to have declared that the respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have incurred disqualification as members of the Zilla Parishad. Though such applications were made by both the petitioners and they have not yet been heard and decided by Respondent No. 29 - Collector on account of political pressure exercised by influential leaders of congress (I) and, therefore, the impugned order is improper, incorrect and illegal. Consequently, the petitioners impugn the order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by Respondent No. 29 - Collector and also challenge the direction to enter their names in the form Nos. I and III of the concerned Registers without deciding the question of disqualification incurred by them. Incidentally, the Petitioners are asking for prohibitive injunction against Respondent nos. 1 to 28 restraining them from participating in any manner in the functioning of the Zilla Parishad.

( 6 ) WE have considered rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have gone through the copies of documents filed along with the petitions. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, Shri Walawalkar, for the Petitioners, is that the impugned order is bad in law in as much as the group of Respondent Nos. 1 to 28 is not formed as a result of a split in the original political party i. e. Shivsena to National level. It is argued further that the impugned order could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. It is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary since the principles of