Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     2080          OF 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 26218/2014)

Sunil Haribhau Kale … Appellant (s)   

Versus

Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:   

Leave granted.    

2. Election to the Amravati Municipal Corporation was held  

on  16.02.2012.  Of  the  total  87  Councillors,  the  Nationalist  

Congress Party with 17, Muslim League with 2, R.P.I.  with 1,  

Samajwadi Party with 1 and 2 Independents formed an aghadi  

(group) and elected the first respondent as their group leader  

(Gat  Neta).  On  06.03.2012,  the  23  members  submitted  the  

following application to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati  

for approval of the alliance and registration of the group leader:

“…  The  newly  elected  Corporators  of  the  Nationalist Congress Party Nos. 1 to 17 along with  other newly elected Corporators, totaling to 23, have  unanimously elected Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar  as a Group Leader of the Nationalist Congress Party.  The List  of  the names of the Corporators from the  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

Nationalist Congress Party,  in Form – I,  under Rule  31(1)(A)  is  submitted  herewith.   Similarly,  the  affidavit duly signed by the honourable Corporators,  in  Form  –  III,  under  Rule  4(1)  is  also  annexed  herewith.

The strength of our Alliance is the Corporators  of the Nationalist Congress Party numbering 1 to 17  and that  of  6  others,  totaling  to  23.   Hence,  it  is  requested to kindly register and approve this Alliance  as a “Nationalist Congress Party Front. …”

(Emphasis supplied) 3. The affidavit filed by the members of the group, reads  

as follows:

“…We,  all  the  newly  elected  members  of  the  Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati, do hereby  inform  you  that,  we  have  formed  Nationalist  Congress Party Front; that we have the total strength  of 23 members; that we have unanimously elected  Shri  Avinash Gulabrao  Mardikar,  the  newly  elected  member  from  Ward  No.26(B),  Benoda  Ward  as  a  Group Leader of our Nationalist Congress Party Front;  that  the  said  Group  Leader  Shri  Avinash  Gulabrao  Mardikar has hereby given his consent to work as a  Leader of our group; and that we do hereby further  undertake  to  bind  ourselves  to  elect,  vote  and  support  the  members  proposed  and  nominated by  our group leader Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as a  Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the President of the Standing  Committee, and the Members and the Chair Persons  of all the Committees; that we will not remain absent  at the time of the voting of the said election; and  that  we are well  aware of  the fact  that  under the  provisions  of  Rule  3  of  the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Member Disqualification Act,  it  is  binding  upon us to obey the orders that would be passed by  our group leader Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as  regards  the  proceedings  of  the  assembly  of  the  Amravati Municipal Council, otherwise, the action can  be taken against us under the provision of Rule 3(5)  

2

Page 3

of the said Act for the infringement of such orders.  …”

(Emphasis supplied)

4. The  request  was  granted  and,  by  order  dated  

11.04.2012, the group was recognized and the first respondent  

was registered as the group leader.

5. Seeking a change of the leader, the General Secretary  

of the Nationalist Congress Party, on 22.03.2014, addressed the  

following letter to the Divisional Commissioner, relevant port of  

which reads as follows:

“Subject:- Nomination  of  the  Group  Leader  of  the alliance of  Nationalist  Congress Party  in  Amravati  Municipal  Corporation,  Amravati.

Res / Sir, The Honourable Shri Bhashkarraoji Jadhao,  the  President,  Maharashtra  Regional  Nationalist  Congress  Party  has  been  pleased to instruct that Shri Sunil Haribhau  Kale be nominated as a Group Leader of  the  alliance of  the  Nationalist  Congress  Party  (NCP)  in  Amravati  Municipal  Corporation, Amravati; and that the group  under his leadership only be approved of.  Hence,  it  is  requested  to  take  the  necessary action, accordingly.

Thanking you, Yours sincerely,

Sd/- Shivajirao Garje.

To, The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.”

3

Page 4

(Emphasis supplied)

6. The  Divisional  Commissioner,  by  order  dated  

16.06.2014, registered the appellant herein as the group leader  

based on the letter of the Secretary of the Nationalist Congress  

Party. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“… It appears that from the letter of Shri Shivajirao  Garje appointment of Shri Sunil Kale has been made  as Group Leader of the Party in Amravati Municipal  Corporation.   There  is  a  prevailing  system  of  appointing  group  leaders/parted  on  the  elected  groups of all political parties by the political parties  themselves.   Under  these  circumstances  giving  approval to the appointment of Shri Sunil Kale on the  post of Group Leader appears to be correct.

Hence  by  way  of  rejecting  the  application  of  the  applicant Name of Shri Sunil Haribhau Kale is being  registered as Group Leader of Rashtravadi Congress  Party in Amravati Municipal Corporation. …”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The first  respondent  challenged the  order  before  the  

High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2014, the  

High Court allowed the Writ  Petition and quashed the order.  

The High Court took the view that the General Secretary of one  

of  the  political  parties  forming  the  aghadi (group),  was  not  

competent to make a request to the Divisional Commissioner to  

register  change  of  the  group  leader  and  that  the  Divisional  

4

Page 5

Commissioner  acted wholly  without  jurisdiction  in  registering  

the change as requested by one of the political parties.  

8. Aggrieved, the appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsels appearing on both sides.

10. Section  2(a)  defining  “aghadi”,  Section  2(i)  defining  

“municipal  party”  and Section  2(j)  defining  “original  political  

party”,  of  the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Members’  

Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  

read as follows:

“2(a)  “  aghadi  ” or “front” means a group of persons    who have formed themselves into  a party for  the  purpose  of  setting  up  candidates  for  election to a local authority;”

xxx xxx xxx

“2(i)  “municipal  party”,  in  relation  to  the  councillor  belonging  to  any  political  party  or  aghadi  or  front  in  accordance  with  the  Explanation to Section 3,   means, — (i) in the case of a councillor of a Municipal  Corporation,  the  group  consisting  of  all  councillors of the Municipal Corporation for the  time being  belonging to that political  party or  aghadi    or  front   in  accordance  with  the  said  Explanation; (ii) in the case of a councillor of a Municipal  Council,  the  group  consisting  of  all  the  councillors of the Municipal Council for the time  being belonging to that political party or aghadi  or  front  in  accordance  with  the  said  Explanation;”

5

Page 6

“2(j) “original  political  party”,  in  relation  to  a  councillor  or  a  member,  means  the  political  party to which he belongs for the purposes of  sub-section (1) of section 3;”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Rule 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members  

Disqualification  Rules,  1987  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  

Rules’) defines a ‘leader to a municipal party (group leader/Gat  

Neta), relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“2(b)  “Form”  means  the  form  appended  to  these  rules; [b-1](i)  “Leader  in  relation  to  a  municipal  party”  means a Councillor chosen by each political party, or  aghadi   or front   in the Municipal Corporation or as the  case may be in the Municipal Council  as its leader  and includes any other  Councillor  of  such party or  aghadi or front authorized by it to act in the absence  of  the leader as,  or  discharge the functions of the  leader  of  such  party  or  aghadi or  front  for  the  purposes of these rules.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. The definition of the term ‘leader’  very clearly shows  

that where a municipal party is an aghadi, its leader has to be  

chosen by the  aghadi or front. Necessarily, any change in the  

leader of the municipal party is to be effected by the  aghadi  

and  not  by  any  outsider.  Once  the  Rules  provide  for  the  

election of the group leader, it has to be done in that manner  

only and not in any other manner, even when there is change  

of  the  leader.  The change of  leader  has  to  be  in  the  same  

6

Page 7

democratic process of induction, in the absence of any other  

method prescribed under the Rules concerned.

13. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and duly recognized  

by the Divisional Commissioner, it becomes a municipal party  

in terms of Section 2(i) of the Act. Once original political parties  

form a municipal party by way of an  aghadi, for all purposes,  

the  group  leader  is  chosen  by  the  municipal  party  (aghadi)  

only.   Rules  do  not  provide  for  nomination  of  group leader.  

Similarly, the group leader of the aghadi can be changed only  

by the group and not  by one of  the political  parties,  big  or  

small, belonging to the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is not  

imposed; leader is elected. Once the birth of a leader in a group  

is  by  way  of  election  by  the  group,  the  group  leader  thus  

elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very  

same process of the election in the group, in the absence of  

any  rules  to  the  contra.  No  doubt,  the  Nationalist  Congress  

Party has 17 members in the  aghadi (group).  That does not  

mean that  the said  party  can impose a  group leader  in  the  

aghadi.  Imposition  of  a  group  leader  otherwise  than  by  the  

democratic  process  cuts  at  the  roots  of  the  democracy  and  

certainly it is in violation of the Rules. It is always open to the  

original political parties to have their respective leaders in the  7

Page 8

aghadi. However, as far as group leader is concerned, he has to  

be elected by the aghadi (group).  

14. Thus, although for a few other different reasons as well,  

apart from those sounded by the High Court in the impugned  

order,  we agree with the view taken by the High Court.  The  

appeal hence is dismissed. The interim order dated 05.09.2014  

is vacated.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                         ..…….…..…………J.

  (M.Y. EQBAL)

  ..……………………J.  (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; February 20, 2015.  

8

Page 9

ITEM NO.50               COURT NO.11               SECTION IX [for judgment]                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).   26218/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  22/08/2014 in WP No. 2772/2014 passed by the High Court Of  Bombay) SUNIL HARIBHAU KALE                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS AVINASH GULABRAO MARDIKAR AND ORS                Respondent(s) Date : 20/02/2015 This petition was called on for judgment  today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv.

Mr. Milind Vashanav, Adv. for                     M/s. Lambat & Associates                    For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.

Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv. Mr. A.S. Raja, Adv. Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. for

                   M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv. Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Kurian  Joseph  pronounced  the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  M.Y. Eqbal and His Lordship.

Leave granted. Appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  signed  

reportable judgment. No costs.

(INDU POKHRIYAL)    (PARDEEP KUMAR)   COURT MASTER           AR-cum-PS

[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 9

Page 10

1