1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18-10-2017 passed by the Honourable Minister (Rural Development), State of Maharashtra, whereby the Honourable Minister has granted stay to the decision rendered by the Collector, Beed, on 16-10- 2017 in Petition No.1/2017. Petition No.1/2017 was filed by the present petitioners under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1986') read with Section 3 of the said Act, along with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987, with a prayer to disqualify respondent nos. 4 to 9.

2. The learned Collector, after having conducted enquiry in the Petition so filed and after having heard the respective parties, allowed the said petition and declared present respondent nos. 4 to 9 to be disqualified to hold the post of Member of Zilla Parishad, Beed, for violation of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act of 1986. Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned Collector, respondent nos. 4 to 9 approached the Honourable Minister (Rural Development) and, as stated above, the Honourable Minister, on 18-10-2017 granted stay to the decision rendered by the learned Collector on 16-10-2017.

3. The order of stay passed by the Honourable Minister on 18-10-2017 is assailed by the petitioners on various grounds. Shri S.V. Kanitkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order is the patent example of arbitrary exercise of powers by the Honourable Minister. The learned Counsel, referring to the provisions of the Act of 1986, the Rules framed there under, as well as the provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Constitution of India, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Honourable Minister, if considered in the light of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts, Rules as well as the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel submitted that the amendment came to be brought in Section 7 of the Act of 1986 and sub clause (3) came to be added in Section 7, thereby providing an appeal to the State Government against the decision of the Commissioner, or the Collector, as the case may be, at the instance and insistence of the Honourable Minister, namely, Smt. Pankaja Mundhe, the Rural Development Minister of the State of Maharashtra.

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that because of such an amendment though the appeal is provided to the State Government against the decision rendered by the Collector or the Commissioner, as the case may be, under Section 7 of the Act of 1986, there is no provision in the Act of 1986 or the Rules thereunder for empowering the Honourable Minister to grant stay to the decision rendered under Section 7 of the Act of 1986. As such, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order passed by the Honourable Minister granting stay is without jurisdiction and, hence deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned Counsel, inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 116A and 116B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, submitted that in absence of any such provision made in the Act of 1986, the Honourable Minister could not have granted stay to the decision rendered by the learned Collector, Beed, on 16th of October, 2017. Learned Counsel, referring to and relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Jyoti Basu and others Vs. Debi Ghoshal and others ( AIR 1982 SC 983), submitted that the Act of 1986 being the Special Act, the Common Law provisions would not apply. Learned Counsel submitted that the appeal filed by the present respondent nos. 4 to 9 before the Honoruable Minister under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1986, being a statutory proceeding, neither the Common Law nor the p