B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Challenge in all these 3 Writ Petitions by the elected Municipal Councilors of Municipal Council, Gondia is identical. Three petitioners in these three petitions seek a direction to respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner and respondent no.3 - Collector to decide applications at Annexures – H and I, filed by them seeking transfer of matters against them from respondent no.4 - Additional Collector to Collector, Gondia or any other Authority in Gondia District on account of loss of faith. Other prayer is for a writ to transfer those proceedings and till then to stay further proceedings in Disqualification Petition No.45/2012 (New No.36/9/1213).

2. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter on 17.01.2014 heard the Counsel for caveator (Respondent no.5) and stayed the declaration of any order by respondent no.4 - Additional Collector. On 12.03.2014 this Court permitted respondent no.4 to pronounce his orders with a direction that said order shall not be given effect to till 18.03.2014. Considering the controversy involved in the matters, by consent of parties, Rule issued was made returnable forthwith on 18.03.2014 and parties were heard finally and writ petitions have been closed for judgment.

3. Shri J.T. Gilda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the transfer of matter from respondent no.3 Collector to respondent no.4 Additional Collector is itself bad in law, as under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act” for short), Collector is the recognized and only competent Authority. He has invited attention to orders/communication by which the Collector transferred the matter to Additional Collector pointing out that it does not have any outward number or date also. He contends that this fact assumes importance because of allegations of malafides and bias by petitioners against respondent no.4. Without prejudice to these contentions, he invites attention to provisions of Section 13[3] of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to urge that the said provision, in the background of 1986 Act, can at the most to be viewed as a general provision and in absence of any express notification by the State Government in favour of respondent no.4, respondent no.4 cannot entertain and deal with the disqualification proceedings. Support is being sought from a judgment in case of Manikchand Hiralal Kasliwal .vrs. Arvind Vithalrao Sawalapurkar reported at 1994 Mh.L.J. 1623, to buttress the contention.

4. He further submits that respondent no.4 unnecessarily started pushing the proceedings and expressed that there was no question of recording any evidence or allowing any cross-examination. Exhibiting undue haste, he fixed the proceedings on day to day basis. Charges were drawn on unscheduled date and the matters adjourned to 03.12.2012 was also pre-poned. On some occasions when important business was to be transacted by the General Body or by the Committee of a Municipal Council, on very same day, he fixed the disqualification proceedings so as to deny the petitioners participation either in important policy decisions of the Municipal Council or then in the disqualification proceedings. Even during recording of evidence, relevant questions were not permitted to be put, and answers were not rightly recorded. When petitioners attempted to file a Pursis lodging their protest, their Pursis was also not accepted. Shri Gilda, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners have specifically pleaded bias and hostile or partial attitude in their petition, and said allegations have remained unanswered by the respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 should have filed his personal affidavit dealing with these allegations, and though he has been joined as a party in personal capacity, he chose not to respond to these allegations. Swearing of affidavit by the said Additional Collector in support of