The judgment established the importance of proper application of discretion and consideration of individual facts and explanations in disqualification cases under Section 16(1D) of the Municipality Act.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioners before this Court are elected Councilors of Respondent No. 4 – Municipal Council, Lonar and they are aggrieved by common order dated 18.02.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 holding that they have incurred disqualification by not submitting return of their election expenditure by 25.04.2009.

3. Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that provisions of Section 16(1D) of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) & Industrial Township Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality Act), confer discretion upon Respondent No. 2 to pass such order of disqualification, if it finds that the Councilor in default had no good reason or justification for his failure. His first contention is, said order does not disclose any application of mind in this respect. He points out that a show cause notice was served upon all elected Councilors by Respondent No. 2 and reply has been filed to it individually by the petitioners. All petitioners have pointed out that within a period of one month i.e. before 25.04.2009 they have given statement of accounts on plain paper to Returning Officer. The requirement of furnishing an affidavit was not known and after getting that knowledge, immediately necessary affidavit was furnished on 18.05.2009 by all the petitioners. He, therefore, argues that these individual details are not looked into and there is no finding that compliance submitted by the petitioners was not constituting a good reason or justification. He has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CCT vs. Shukla & Bros., reported at (2010) 4 SCC 785, particularly paras 10 & 12 to urge that such individual application of mind to the explanation furnished in fact shows the reasons for reaching a particular conclusion and, therefore, constitute soul of any judicial or quasi judicial order. The absence of reasons is breach of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, states that disqualification of all petitioners must be quashed and set aside.

4. Shri Marpakwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has invited attention to reply affidavit filed on record. He also invites attention to a line appearing in impugned order which records that the petitioners have not given any good reason or justification and he further argues that the records with the office of the Collector, Buldhana and Returning Officer were looked in to arrive at this finding. He was in fact seeking adjournment to produce those records before this Court.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No. 1 has also supported the impugned order.

6. The request for adjournment is opposed by the petitioner, who contends that the reasons or application of mind in impugned order cannot be supplemented by taking recourse to any other material.

7. I have perused the impugned order dated 18.02.2010. The said order runs into four paras and thereafter there is a list of 78 persons who contested the election and all of them have been declared to have incurred disqualification under Section 16 (1D) of the Municipality Act. It is not in dispute that name of present 15 petitioners appear in this list. First para of the order mentions only the provision of law. The second para makes reference to time of 30 days prescribed for furnishing accounts and that accordingly accounts ought to have been furnished by 25.04.2009. The third para then mentions that 78 candidates whose name appear below in that order contesting the election of Lonar Municipal Council were served with a show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 for not giving the accounts within prescribed time and were called upon to file their reply by 27.11.2009 and thereafter the last para which in fact records a finding appears. In last para or fourth para, it is mentioned that as none of the candidates furnished any