1. This petition is directed against the order passed on 1-7-2009 by respondent No.1 – The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, under Section 40 read with Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, disqualifying the petitioner from holding the office of Councillor and consequently that of President, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.

2. Facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under:

The petitioner had been awarded contracts of asphalting of two roads by contracts dated 27-9-2005 and 17-3-2005 by Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. The petitioner had completed the work, but his final bills remained to be paid as on 23-2-2007 for want of funds.

3. The petitioner filed nomination for being elected as Councillor from 36-Kelzar Chinchala constituency. One Subhash Bukkawar objected to petitioner’s nomination on 26-2-2007 on the ground that the petitioner was a contractor of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, and had received remuneration and so was disqualified. The Election Officer rejected this objection and held petitioner’s nomination to be valid. The petitioner was then elected as Councillor on 12-3-2007 and was elected President of the Zilla Parishad on 21-3-2007.

4. After the petitioner was elected as President on 21-3-2007, amounts of his outstanding bills were paid on 30-3-2007, 31-3-2007 and 12-6-2007.

5. On 5-4-2007, respondent No.3 applied under Section 40 of the Act before the Commissioner, respondent No.1, for petitioner’s disqualification on the same ground. By an order dated 29-3-2008, respondent No.1 rejected this application. Respondent No.3 filed Writ Petition No.2016 of 2008 challenging the said order. This petition was dismissed by judgment dated 16-1-2009, giving liberty to respondent No.3 to file fresh application before respondent No.1, within a week, which was to be decided within 90 days. Accordingly, respondent No.3 filed fresh application before respondent No.1 on 19-1-2009. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection and filed Writ Petition No.2452 of 2009 for a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the objection. This petition was withdrawn on 15-6-2009.

6. Thereafter respondent No.1 passed impugned order on 1-7-2009, against which the present petition is filed. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 did not uphold the objection of the petitioner to the locus of respondent No.3 to file such an application seeking petitioner’s disqualification. Respondent No.1 also held that though works under the contract were completed by the petitioner before election, he had received payment after being elected as Councillor, indicating his interest in the works undertaken for Zilla Parishad. Therefore, respondent No.1 held that the petitioner was disqualified.

7. Granting interim stay, by order dated 9-7-2009, this petition was directed to be heard finally at admission stage. Respondent No.3 has filed preliminary submissions opposing the petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. While the learned AGP for respondent No.1 supported the order, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad supports the petitioner.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it does not at all give any reasons. He submitted that it is the basic rule of law and natural justice that the order has to be self-explanatory and should not keep the Courts guessing for reasons. For this purpose, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Kum. Nirmala Tikana Giripo v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported at 2009(1) ALL MR 91. There can be no doubt that an authority is required to pass an order, which makes reasons clear. However, what amount of articulation would be necessary would depend on the comprehension of the author as well as the reader. There can be no doubt that the impugned order could have been more elaborate, but definitely it cannot be said that the order