JUDGMENT V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. : - 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. T respondent Nos. 1 to 28 could not be recognised as a separate group unless the is split in the original party i.e. Shivsena. The respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have file their requisition for convening a special meeting to consider "No Confident Motion" against Vice President Shri S. P. Ogle, but they have no legal right participate in such a meeting inasmuch as they have incurred disqualification formation of a separate group. The respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have file their requisition for convening a special meeting to consider "No Confident Motion" against Vice President Shri S. P. Ogle, but they have no legal right participate in such a meeting inasmuch as they have incurred disqualification formation of a separate group. The respondent No. 29 ought to have declared to the respondent Nos. 1 to 28 have incurred disqualification as members of the Zilla Parishad. Though such applications were made by both the petitioners I they have not yet been heard and decided by respondent No. 29 - Collector account of political pressure exercised by influential leaders of Congress (I) an therefore, the impugned order is improper, incorrect and illegal. Consequent! 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 t Form Nos. I and III of the concerned Registers without deciding the question disqualification incurred by them. Incidentally, the petitioners are asking prohibitive injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 28 restraining them fro 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 la inasmuch as the group of respondent Nos. 1 to 28 is not formed as a result of 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 give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is contended that the impugned or is arbitrary since the principles of natural justice have not been followed respondent No. 29 - Collector. Learned Counsel further pointed out that petitioners had immediately objected to giving recognition to the group respondent Nos. 1 to 28 and yet they were not called upon to explain their stance before passing of the impugned order. Lastly, it is contended that respondent N 29 - Collector has not yet decided the question of disqualification incurred respondent Nos. 1 to 28 and has proceeded on long leave to avoid taking of Iegal decision in the matter. 1 to 28 and yet they were not called upon to explain their stance before passing of the impugned order. Lastly, it is contended that respondent N 29 - Collector has not yet decided the question of disqualification incurred respondent Nos. 1 to 28 and has proceeded on long leave to avoid taking of Iegal decision in the matter. It is urged that respondent No. 29 - Collector may directed to decide applications of the petitioners dated 3rd April, 2006 and 7 April, 2006, respectively, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 7. Before we proceed to resolve the main controversy, it may be mention that in the year 2002 fifty (50) Zilla Parishad Members were elected Sindhudurg Zilla Parishad. Partywise position was as under: (i) Shivsena 30 (ii) Bharatiya Janata Party 08 (iii) Indian National Congress (I) 07 (iv) Nationalist Congress Party 05 As a result of the formation of separate group by respondent Nos. 1 to 28, elected members of Shivsena remained as 02, and it became a political party with negligible strength in the House. Thus, due to formation of a separate group by the respondent Nos. 1 to 28, there was a sudden change in the strength of shivsena Party, which dwindled from majority to minority. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the context of interpretation which he seeks to make of section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short "Disqualification Act"). The relevant provision may be reproduced for ready reference as below: "4. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the context of interpretation which he seeks to make of section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short "Disqualification Act"). The relevant provision may be reproduced for ready reference as below: "4. (1) Where a councillor, or as the case may be, a member makes a claim that he and any other member of the municipal party, Zilla Parishad party, or as the case may be, the Panchayat Samiti party constitute the group representing a faction which has arisen as a result of a split in his original political party or aghadi or front and where the total strength of the councillors or, as the case may be, members - (A) does notexceed twenty and such group consists of one -half, or (B) exceeds twenty and such group consists" of one -third, of the councillors of such municipal party, Zilla Parishad party, or as the case may be, the members of such Panchayat Samiti party - (a) he shall not be disqualified under sub -section (1) of section 3 on 1e ground - (i) that he has voluntarily given up membership of his original political party or aghadi or front or : (ii) that he has voted or abstained from voting in the meeting of such Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla Parishad or as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti, contrary to any direction issued by such party or aghadi or front or by any person or authority authorised by any of them in that behalf without obtaining the prior permission of such party, aghadi, front, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such party, aghadi, front, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention: and (b) from the time of such split, such faction shall be deemed to be the political party or aghadi or front to which, he belongs for the purposes of sub -section (1) of section 3 and to be his original political party or aghadi or front for the purposes of this section." 9. The connotation of expression "a group" representing a faction which has arisen as a result of a split in his "original party" cannot be interpreter to refer vertical split of the original party on national level. The connotation of expression "a group" representing a faction which has arisen as a result of a split in his "original party" cannot be interpreter to refer vertical split of the original party on national level. We are of the opinion that such an interpretation of sub -clause (1) is likely to lead to anomalous position. It will be absurd to expect vertical split of the party on national level for the purpose of giving recognition to a faction which has segregated itself from the original political party at a Zilla Parishad of a District. We cannot ignore intention of the legislature while drafting sub -clause (1) of section 4 of the Disqualification Act. The State Legislature cannot determine question of disqualification having impact on national level, which will amount to enactment pertaining to extra territorial jurisdiction and may result into anomaly. For example, in one State such a faction may not incur disqualification in spite of split in the original party at national level as per the local law prevailing in that State yet disqualification may be incurred by similarly placed members of group in another State like Maharashtra. The expression "as a result of split in h original political party" will have to be interpreted in such a way that the sub -clause (I) is made workable. In our considered opinion, this expression in i proper connotion will have to mean as a split in the original political party at the Zilla Parishad level and it cannot be stretched to mean split in the political pa at any other level. The expression "original party" will necessarily mean "Zil Parishad party" in the House of Zilla Parishad, or its Council, as the case may We are inclined, therefore, to reject contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners in this context. 10. On behalf of the petitioners, a copy of the local newspaper styl "Sindhudurg Times" (pg.19) is relied upon in order to show that prior to 22n March, 2006 the respondent Nos. 1 to 28 joined hands with Nationalist Congerss Party and hence they have been disqualified on account of defection fro Shivsena party. It is difficult to appreciate such contention based on so newspaper report. The newspaper report is a hearsay evidence and cannot relied upon unless proved by substantive evidence. 1 to 28 joined hands with Nationalist Congerss Party and hence they have been disqualified on account of defection fro Shivsena party. It is difficult to appreciate such contention based on so newspaper report. The newspaper report is a hearsay evidence and cannot relied upon unless proved by substantive evidence. In case of Sunil s/o Ramdl Kotkar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 37. such practice of filing writ petitions with newspaper cuttings is deprecated by co -ordinate Bench of this Court. So also it is held that the High Court cannot test political issue while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of t Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that whether the respondent Nos. to 28 had joined hands -in -glove with any other party prior to formation of the separate groups or any such outside connivance existed, is a question of fact an the same cannot be decided by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction is well settled that such issues under political thicket cannot be wriggled out: 1, decided while exercising the writ jurisdiction. Hence, we are unable to look into the newspaper reports and express any opinion on the issue of defection from Shivsena party by respondent Nos. 1 to 28. 11. We do not find any substance in the contention that the prior hearing t petitioner - Parshuram Uparkar was necessary since he is District President of Shivsena Party. It need not be reiterated that he did not represent largest party in the Zilla Parishad at the relevant time because biggest chunk of the elected, members had decided to separate themselves from the remaining 02 members. cannot be overlooked that respondent No. 14 - Ashok was elected as the leader of the House and hence, if at all, hearing was necessary than it was his right to claim so. Neither petitioners can have any legal right of hearing in the matters, to the extent it relates to recognition of a separate group called "Swabhiman Sindhudurg Vikas Gat" though they may agitate question of disqualification in relation to members of such group. There is no Rule pointed out to us for application of the principles of natural justice in such a matter. There is no Rule pointed out to us for application of the principles of natural justice in such a matter. There is hardly any material to show that the respondent No. 29 - Collector acted under political influence and arbitrarily gave recognition to the group of respondent Nos. 1 to 28 as a separate entity in the Zilla Parishad House. Hence, we deem it proper to reject such argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to provisions f Rule 3(4) of the Disqualification Rules. Sub -clause (4) of Rule 3 reads as under: (4) Whenever any change takes place in the information furnished by the leader of a municipal party of a Zilla Parishad party, in relation to a Councillor and by the leader of a Panchayat Samiti party, in relation to a member under sub -rule (1) or by a member under sub -rule (2), he shall as soon as may be thereafter and in any case not later than thirty days from the date on which such change has taken place or within such further period as the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, Collector may for sufficient reason allow, furnish in writing the information with respect to such change LO the Commissioner or, as the case may be, Collector." It is contended that the information has to be furnished by leader of the Zilla Parishad party regarding change and hence without furnishing of such information by the leader of such party. it was improper to allow registration of names of respondent Nos. 1 to 28 in the concerned registers as members of a separate group called "Swabhirnani Sindhudurg Vikas Gat. In our opinion the leader of Zilla Parishad party may be a self -proclaimed leader of a group. Obviously, the action of respondent No. 29 - Collector cannot be branded as illegal because the recognition was given on the basis of the representation made by respondent No. 14 - Ashok Sawant vide letter dated 27th March, 2006 (Exh."C" pg.19). It is important to note that respondent No. 14 - Ashok was elected as leader of the party in view of the proceedings dated 23rd March, 2006 (pg.20) and hence he was legally competent to furnish information regarding the change .. 13. It is important to note that respondent No. 14 - Ashok was elected as leader of the party in view of the proceedings dated 23rd March, 2006 (pg.20) and hence he was legally competent to furnish information regarding the change .. 13. Relying upon certain observations in case of Mayawati vs. Markandeya Chand and others, (1998) 7 see 517, it is vehemently argued that for recognition to the group of respondent Nos. 1 to 28 as a separate faction, it is necessary to satisfy the following requirements: (i) A split in the original political party giving rise to a faction., (ii) The faction is represented by a group of the elected Zilla Parishad members in the House.,(iii) Such group consists of not less than one third of the members of the legislature party to which they belong. The Apex Court has observed : "For the purpose of that para, (para 3 of the Tenth Schedule), all the three conditions must be fulfilled. It is not sufficient if more than 1/3rd members of a legislature party form a separate group and give to themselves a different name without there being a split in the original political party. Thus the factum of split in the original party and the number of members in the "group" exceeding 1/3rd of the members of the legislature party are the conditions to be proved." As stated hereinbefore the connotation "original party" means "Zilla Parishad Party" under the Local Laws. In the present case, there is a split in the original political party, namely, Shivsena party in Zilla Parishad which gave rise to separation of a group and hence faction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 28 came into existence. This faction is represented in the House of Zilla Parishad and respondent No. 14 their leader. They formed more than 1/3rd of the total num of election members in the Zilla Parishad. We do not find that the authority case of Mayawati (supra) is of any assistance to the case in hand. 1 to 28 came into existence. This faction is represented in the House of Zilla Parishad and respondent No. 14 their leader. They formed more than 1/3rd of the total num of election members in the Zilla Parishad. We do not find that the authority case of Mayawati (supra) is of any assistance to the case in hand. On the other hand, it has been observed: "When the Tenth Schedule has expressly constituted the Speaker or t Chairman as the case may be to decide the question of disqualification and attach finality thereto, it is not for this Court to consider the facts a decide the said question by substituting itself in the place of the Speaker If the order of the Speaker is set aside on any of the grounds mention in the Hollohan by exercising the power of limited judicial review, t consequential, I course to be adopted is to leave the matter to the Speaker to decide afresh in accordance with law." 14. Considering above observations of the Supreme Court of India, we are of the opinion that the question of disqualification ought to be left open fl decision of the respondent No. 29 - Collector. The grievance of the petitioners that their applications are not being decided by the respondent No. 29 -Collect, though early decision is expected under the Disqualification Act, we deem proper to direct the respondent No. 29 - Collector to decide the application submitted by the petitioners regarding question of disqualification of responded Nos. 1 to 28 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order However, we do not find any merit in the either writ petition insofar as the relate to challenge pertaining to the question of recognition of group 01 respondent Nos. 1 to 28 as a separate group in the House of Zilla Parishad. 15. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed. The respondent No. 1, Collector is, however, directed to decide the representations made by the petitioners on 3rd April, 2006 and 7th April, 2006 respectively, as regards the question of disqualification incurred by respondent Nos. 1" to 28 on account of formation of a separate group within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.