Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 28853 of 2013)

Ajay Ramdas Ramteke and Anr. … Appellants

Versus

Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

       Leave granted.

2.     The  question  involved  in  this  appeal  is  whether  

respondent no. 1 -  Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti,  Akola,  an  

“aghadi”  or  “front”  formed  by  some  of  the  elected  

councillors  of  respondent  no.  5  -Akola  Municipal  

Corporation in March, 2013, without its registration under

Page 2

2

second proviso  to   Section  31A(2)  of  the   Maharashtra  

Municipal  Corporations Act,  1949 (for  short  “1949 Act”)  

stood registered and recognized as a party or group for  

the purposes of representation, and as such whether the  

petition filed by respondent no.1 before the High Court  

challenging the  Standing Committee constituted  under  

the 1949 Act  was maintainable.

3.       Brief facts of the case are that elections were held  

for  Akola  Municipal  Corporation  in  February,  2012,  

wherein 73 councillors were elected to the House.  From  

amongst  elected  members,  initially  23  members,  and  

thereafter in all 26 members claimed to  have formed an  

“aghadi” (group of persons) with the name  “Mahanagar  

Sudhar Samiti”.   On 5.3.2012,  within one month of  the  

election, leader of the said group submitted an application  

before  the  Divisional  Commissioner  for  its  registration  

under second proviso to Section 31A(2) of the 1949 Act.  It  

appears that in the meantime there was a controversy as  

to whether two of the elected members projected to be

Page 3

3

part of the group were actually members of the aghadi  

(respondent  no.1)  or  another  group  Akola  Vikas  

Mahaaghadi  (present  respondent  no.6).   The said  issue  

was decided by the High court  by a detailed judgment  

dated 08.05.2012 passed in writ petition no. 1426 of 2012  

holding that the aforesaid two members were not part of  

either respondent no. 1 or 6.  Thereafter, the Divisional  

Commissioner  passed  a  detailed  order  on  28.08.2012  

whereby  the  application  for  registration  of  respondent  

no.1 as  aghadi filed in March 2012 was rejected.   Said  

order  was  not  challenged  by  any  party.   However,  

meanwhile  Resolution  dated 29.04.2013 was  passed by  

the  Akola  Municipal  Corporation  whereby  the  present  

appellants and six others (present respondent nos. 9 to  

14)  were  nominated  in  the  Standing  Committee  as  

members  thereof.   The  Resolution  was  challenged  by  

respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing a Writ Petition no. 2571 of  

2013  before  the  Nagpur  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature at Bombay.  A preliminary objection was raised  

on behalf  of  Mayor  (respondent  no.  4)  before  the  High

Page 4

4

Court  that  the  writ  petition  was  not  maintainable.  

Defending the Resolution dated 29.04.2013, it was stated  

that there was no illegality  in nominating the members  

whose  names  figured  in  the  Standing  Committee  

constituted vide Resolution dated 29.04.2013.   

4. After hearing the parties, the High Court took the  

view  that  since  the  application  for  registration,  in  the  

register  maintained  in  Form  IV  as  per  Rule  5  of  

Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Members'  Disqualification  

Rules,  1987  (for  short  “1987 Rules”),  was  made within  

time, the respondent no.1 should have been treated as  

separate aghadi, and as such non-inclusion of names of its  

members for proportional representation in the Standing  

Committee invalidates the Resolution dated 29.04.2013.  

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Resolution dated  

29.04.2013 and allowed the writ petition.   

5.        Aggrieved, by the above order dated 14.08.2013,  

passed by the  High Court,  in  Writ  Petition No.  2571 of  

2013,  this  appeal  is  filed  by  the  appellants  who  were

Page 5

5

respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the High Court, through  

special leave.    

6.    It is pleaded on behalf of the appellants that the  

High Court has erred in law by accepting the writ petition  

filed  by  respondent  nos.  1  to  3  which  was  not  

maintainable.  It is stated that the High Court ignored the  

fact  that  vide  order  dated  28.08.2012,  the  Divisional  

Commissioner had rejected the application for registration  

moved  by  respondent  No.  1  as  separate  aghadi.   It  is  

further  pleaded  that  registration  of  post-poll  group  or  

alliance was mandatory under  Section 31A of  1949 Act  

read  with  1987  Rules.    It  is  argued  before  us  that  

unregistered  aghadi is not an  aghadi in the eyes of law,  

and  as  such,  neither  the  same  could  have  been  

recognized  for  its  representation  in  the  Standing  

Committee  nor  maintain  the  writ  petition  in  the  High  

Court.

7.     On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent  

nos. 1 to 3, who were the writ petitioners before the High

Page 6

6

Court,   contended  that  since  there  was  no  rule  or  

procedure prescribed for  registration as  such their  only  

duty was to   intimate the Divisional Commissioner under  

Rule 3 of 1987 Rules about the formation of  aghadi, and  

the rest was the ministerial  work to be completed.  The  

contesting respondent nos. 1 to 3 placed their reliance  in  

the case of Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani and Another  

vs.  Divisional  Commissioner,  Konkar  Bhawan  and  

others (2012) 2 SCC 794.

8.  Before  further  discussion,  we  think  it  just  and  

proper  to  mention  as  to  what  is  the  meaning  of  word  

‘Aghadi’,  and for  what  purpose  it  is  constituted  by  the  

councillors  of  Corporation.   Word  ‘aghadi’ is  defined  in  

Clause  (a)  of  Section  2  of  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  

Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (for short “1986 Act”)  

which reads as under:

“2.  In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-   

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

Page 7

7

9.      Object of  allowing elected members to form an  

aghadi as  post-poll  alliance  is  to  give  proportional  

representation  of  its  members  to  the  various  standing  

committees  constituted  for  functioning  of  the  

Corporations.   

10. Second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31A  

of 1949 Act allows the concillors to form an aghadi after  

the election to a Municipal Corporation.  Section 31A reads  

as under:

“31A.   Appointment  by  nomination  on  Committees to be by proportional representation  – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or  the rules or bye-laws made thereunder, in the case of  the following committees, except where it  is  provided  by this Act, that the appointment of a Councillor to any  Committee shall be by virtue of his holding any office,  appointment  of  Councillors  to  these  Committees,  whether in regular or casual vacancies, shall be made  by  the  Corporation  by  nominating  Councillors  in  accordance with the provisions of sub-section(2):-

(a)  Standing Committee;

(b)   Transport Committee;

(c)    Any  special  Committee  appointed  under  section 30;

(d)      Any  ad  hoc  Committee  appointed  under  section 31”

Page 8

8

(2) In nominating the Councillors on the Committee, the  Corporation shall take into account the relative strength  of the recognized parties or registered parties or groups  and  nominate  members,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  in  proportion to the strength of such parties or groups in  the  Corporation,  after  consulting  the  Leader  of  the  House, the Leader of Opposition and the leader of each  such party or group:

Provided  that,  the relative  strength  of  the recognized  parties or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front  shall be calculated by first dividing the total number of  Councillors  by  the  total  strength  of  members  of  the  Committee.   The  number  of  Councillors  of  the  recognized  parties  or  registered  parties  or  groups  or  aghadi or front shall be further divided by the quotient  of this division.  The figures so arrived at shall be the  relative strength of the respective recognized parties or  registered parties  or groups or  aghadi or front.   The  seats  shall  be  allotted  to  the  recognized  parties  or  registered parties or groups or  aghadi or front by first  considering  the  whole  number  of  their  respective  relative  strength  so  ascertained.    After  allotting  the  seats in this manner, if one or more seats remain to be  allotted,  the  same  shall  be  allotted  one  each  to  the  recognized  parties  or  registered  parties  or  groups  or  aghadi or front in the descending order of the fraction  number in the respective relative strength starting from  the highest fraction number in the relative strength, till  all the seats are allotted:

Provided further that,  for the purpose of  deciding the  relative strength of the recognized parties or registered  parties or groups under this Act, the recognized parties  or  registered parties  or groups,  or elected Councillors  not  belonging  to  any  such  party  or  group  may,  notwithstanding anything contained in the Maharashtra

Page 9

9

Local  Authority  Members’  Disqualification  Act,  1986  (Mah. XX of 1987), within a period of one month from  the  date  of  notification  of  election  results,  from  the  aghadi or front and, on its registration, the provisions of  the said Act shall apply to the members of such aghadi  or front, as if it is a registered pre-poll aghadi or front.

(3)   If  any question arises as regards the number of  Councillors to be nominated on behalf of such party or  group, the decision of the Corporation shall be final”.    

11.   In Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani (supra), this Court has  

made following observations interpreting the second proviso  

of sub-section 2 of Section 31A:

“26. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section  31-A enables the formation of an aghadi or front within  a period of one month from the date of notification of  the  election  results.  Such  an  aghadi  or  front  can  be  formed by various possible combinations of Councillors  belonging to either  two or  more registered parties or  recognised  parties  or  independent  Councillors.  The  proviso categorically stipulates that such a formation of  an  “aghadi”  or  “front”  is  possible  notwithstanding  anything contained in the Disqualification Act. Because  an  “aghadi”  or  “front”,  as  defined  under  the  Disqualification  Act,  clearly,  can  only  be  the  combination of a group of persons forming themselves  into  a  party  prior  to  the  election  for  setting  up  candidates at an election to a local authority but not a  combination of political parties or political parties and  individuals.

27. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 31-A(2) of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  which  is  a  later  expression of the will of the sovereign, in contrast to the  stipulation as contained under Sections 2(a) and 3(2) of

Page 10

10

the Disqualification Act, would enable the formation of  post-electoral  aghadis  or  fronts.  However,  such  a  formation  is  only  meant  for  a  limited  purpose  of  enabling such aghadis to secure better representation  in  the various categories  of  the Committees specified  under Section 31-A. The component parties or individual  independent  Councillors,  as  the  case  may  be,  in  the  case of a given front/aghadi do not lose their political  identity and merge into the aghadi/front  or bring into  existence a new political party. There is no merger such  as  the  one  contemplated  under  Section  5  of  the  Disqualification  Act.  It  is  further  apparent  from  the  language of the second proviso that on the formation of  such  an  aghadi  or  front,  the  same  is  required  to  be  registered.  The  procedure  for  such  registration  is  contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’  Disqualification Rules, 1987.

28. Once such an aghadi is registered by a legal fiction  created under the proviso, such an aghadi is treated as  if it were a pre-poll aghadi or front. The proviso further  declares  that  once  such  a  registration  is  made,  the  provisions  of  the  Disqualification  Act  apply  to  the  members of such post-poll aghadi. We do not propose to  examine the legal consequences of such a declaration  as  it  appears  from  the  record  that  a  complaint  has  already  been  lodged  against  Respondents  6  to  13  herein under the provisions of the Disqualification Act.  The  limited  question  before  us  is  whether  the  first  respondent was legally right in registering an aghadi or  front formed after the lapse of one month from the date  of the notification of the election results.

              XXX          XXX         XXX XXX

30. In  substance,  the  High  Court  held  that  the  interpretation of Section 31-A depends upon the tenor  and  scheme  of  the  subordinate  legislation.  Such  a  principle  of  statutory  construction  is  not  normally  resorted to save in the case of interpretation of an old  enactment where the language is ambiguous.  We are  conscious of the fact that there is some difference of  opinion  on  this  principle  but  for  the  purpose  of  the  present case we do not think it necessary to examine  the proposition in detail as in our opinion the language

Page 11

11

of  Section  31-A  is  too  explicit  to  require  any  other  external  aid  for  the  interpretation  of  the  same.  Subordinate  legislation  made  by  the  executive  in  exercise of the powers delegated by the legislature, at  best, may reflect the understanding of the executive of  the  scope  of  the  powers  delegated.  But  there  is  no  inherent  guarantee  that  such  an  understanding  is  consistent  with  the  true  meaning  and  purport  of  the  parent enactment.

31. Such variations of the relative strength of aghadis  would have various legal consequences provided under  the  Disqualification  Act.  Depending  upon  the  fact  situation in a given case, the variation might result in  the consequence of rendering some of the Councillors  disqualified for continuing as Councillors. Section 31-A  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  Act  only  enables  the  formation of an aghadi or front within a month from the  date of the notification of the results of the election to  the  Municipal  Corporation.  To  permit  recognition  of  variations in the relative strength of the political parties  beyond the abovementioned period of one month would  be  plainly  in  violation  of  the  language of  the  second  proviso to Section 31-A.”

12.     We have already discussed that an  aghadi formed  

after election is  required to be registered as provided in  

sub-section (2) of Section 31A of 1940 Act. Rule 5 of 1987  

Rules, which relates to maintaining a register of information  

as to councilors and members, provides as under:

“Register of information as to councilors or members.-  (1)  The Commissioner in  the case of  a councilor  of  a  Municipal Corporation and the Collector, in the case of  any other councilor or member, shall maintain in Form  IV, a register based on the information furnished under

Page 12

12

rules 4 and 5 in relation to the councilor of a municipal  party,  Zilla  Parishad  party  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  member of a Panchayat Samiti Party.”

13.   There  is  no  detailed  procedure  prescribed  for  

registration of an  aghadi.  It is evident from Rule 5 quoted  

above, that power to register vests with the Commissioner.  

The word “Commissioner” is defined in clause (c) of Rule 2 of  

1986 Act   and the same is reproduced below:

“(c)  “Commissioner”  means  the  Commissioner  of  a  revenue  division  appointed  under  Section  6  of  the  Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966”.  

14. In  earlier  round,  respondent  no.  1  filed  writ  

petition  no.  1426  of  2012  challenging  Resolution  dated  

20.03.2012 passed  in  the  General  Body  Meeting  of  Akola  

Municipal Corporation which was decided by the High Court  

with the following two concluding paragraphs:

“30.    This  discussion  leads  to  conclusion  that  Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 could not have been treated as  members  either  of  Respondent  No.  4  or  then  of  the  petitioner.    The  proportionate  representation  of  the  Petitioner & Respondent No. 4 on Standing Committee  needed  to  be  worked  out  by  ignoring  them.   The  Petitioner  therefore,  is  rightly  given 5 members.   But  then  there  has  to  be  proportionate  reduction  in  representation  allotted to  Respondent  4.   Strength  of  Respondent  No.  4  in  general  body  of  73  is  33.   It  therefore gets 7.23 seats in Standing Committee i.e. 7  seats.  One seat remains vacant and decision about it

Page 13

13

cannot  be  taken  as  Respondent  No.  3  Divisional  Commissioner  has  still  not  completed  his  exercise  of  verification.   First  proviso  to  Section  31A(2)  does not  prohibit  Corporation   from filling  in  such  vacancy  by  nominating  on  the  Committee  any  member  not  belonging  to  any  such  party  or  group.   If  no  such  member is  available,  Respondent Nos.  1 to 4 as also  Petitioner  have  to  start  working  with  Standing  Committee  of  15  members  only  &  continue  till  the  Respondent No. 3 decides on the validity of change or  then  status  of  Respondent  Nos.  5  &  6.   It  is  settled  position that law does not expect compliance with the  impossibilities.  Holding of a General Body Meeting for  this limited purpose is essential.  If Respondent 3 finds  Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 not disqualified, Corporation can  thereafter, proceed to fill in the sixteenth vacancy.

31. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 Aghadi as also  Respondent  Nos.  1  &  2  are  directed  to  bring  down  representation  of  Respondent  No.  4  on  Standing  Committee  from  8  to  7.   Proceedings  and  meeting  conducted on 20.03.2012 are quashed & set-aside to  that extent.  Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 to hold a general  body  meeting  to  bring  down  the  strength  of  representatives  of  Respondent  No.  4  from  8  to  7.  Respondent  1  Corporation  is  free  to  fill  in  resulting  vacancy by nominating on the Standing Committee a  Councillor as per first proviso to Section 31A(2) of the  Corporation  Act  in  this  meeting.   Said  general  body  meeting  be  held  within   period  of  three  weeks  from  today.  If 16th seat in Standing Committee can not be  filled in, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall function with  Standing Committee of 15 members only.   Petition is  thus partly  allowed.   Rule  is  made absolute in above  terms.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.”  

But in that round of litigation, Divisional Commissioner was  

neither a party, nor any direction was sought against him.

15. Shri  Nikhil  Nayyar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent  no.  1  referred   to  a  copy  of  letter  dated

Page 14

14

06.05.2013  (Annexure  R1/5)  annexed with   the  reply  on  

behalf of respondent no. 1 and contended that respondent 1  

was  registered.   Per  contra  on  behalf  of  appellants,  Shri  

Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel drew our attention  

to  the   copy  of  order  dated  28.8.2012  (Annexure  P-5)  

whereby  application  for  registration  of  Mahanagar  Sudhar  

Samiti - respondent no. 1 as an aghadi was rejected by the  

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.

16. Copy  of   communication  dated  06.05.2013  

(Annexure  R-1/5)  issued  by   Municipal  Secretary,  Akola  

earlier  informing that  Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti as one of  

the registered aghadi is re-produced below:

“O.N.AMNC/NS/25/12 Office of Municipal Secretary Akola Municipal Corporation

Akola Dated.6/5/13 To  Shri Sunil Meshram Member, MNC Ward no.8-A

Subject – Regarding the list of Gatneta and Aghadi which  are approved by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.

S.  No

           Name of  Party/Aghadi/Gat

Gatneta

1) Akola Vikas Mahaaghadi Shri  Madan  Babulal  Bhargad

2) Mahanagar  Sudhar Shri  Harish  Ratanlal

Page 15

15

Samiti Alimchandani 3) Shivsena Smt.  Manusha  

Sanjay Shelke 4) Akola  Shahar  Vikas  

Aghadi Shri Beni Sh. Ganga  Beniwale.

The Divisional Commissioner Amravati had issued a letter  bearing  no.  MNC/Namuna  5/akola/MNC/12/2012  Dtd.7/6/2012  by  which  it  is  communicated  to  Municipal  Corporation  that  four  Aghadi  and  Gatneta  are  registered  under  the  provisions  of  Maharashtra  Local  Authorities  Members  Disqualification  Act  and the  list  of  the  same is  appended herewith

Sd/-         Municipal Secretary Akola”

17. Before  above  communication  the  Divisional  

Commissioner  had  passed  order  dated  28.08.2012,  

relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:

“BEFORE  SHRI  GANESH  THAKUR,  DIVISIONAL  COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI.

Case No. 3/Akola M.C/2011-12

(1)   Shri Harish Ratanlalji Alimchandani, Party     leader, Mahanagar Sudhar Committee,     Akola, Municipal Corporation, Akola, R/o.    Aalsi Plots, Tq & Distt. Akola ….Applicant

(2)  Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad,   Party Leader, Akola Vikas   Mahaaghadi, Municipal Corporation,   Akola, R/o. Geeta Nagar, Tq &    Distt. Akola …Applicant

Adv. Milind Vaishnav…. On behalf of Applicant No. 1

Page 16

16

O R D E R  

As  per  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Membership  Disqualification  Act,  1986  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “Disqualification  Act”)   and  Rule  3(a)  of  the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Membership  Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as  “Disqualification  Rules”)  thereunder,  on  05/03/2012  Shri  Harish  Ratanlalji  Alimchandani,  Party  Leader,  Mahanagar  Sudhar  Samiti,  Akola,  Municipal  Corporation,  Akola  submitted  proposal  in  prescribed  form  for  registration  of  “Mahanagar  Sudhar  Samiti,  Akola”,  sponsored by “  Bhartiya Janata Party” in the  registration  book  of  Divisional  Commissioner  Office.  Alongwith  the  present  application  the  applicant  no.1  has  filed  list  of  members  (List  of  Councillors).   The  applicant  no.2,  Shri  Madan  Bodulal  Bhargad,  Party  Leader,  Akola  Vikas  Aghadi,  Municipal  Corporation,  Akola on 16/03/2012 submitted proposal in prescribed  form  as  per  provisions  of  Disqualification  Act  for  registration  of  Akola  Vikas Mahaaghadi  sponsored by  Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress in registration book of the  office  of  Divisional  Commissioner.   Alongwith  the  proposal  in  prescribed  form  the  applicant  has  submitted list of total 35 members (List of Councillors).

On  scrutiny  of  both  the  proposals,  it  comes  to  the  notice that, in the proposal submitted by applicant no.1  the name of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone is at Sr.no.20  and  name  of  Sau.  Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone  is  at  Sr.no.21. So also, in the proposal filed by applicant no.  2 the name of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone is at Sr.no. (Five) (2) and name of Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone is  at Sr.no.(Five)(3).  As the names of Shri Sanjay Babulal  Badone  and  Sau.  Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone  are  mentioned in both the lists, confusion has been created  as  to  which  vanguard/front  they  are  members.  Therefore, by notice dt. 23/03/2012 both the applicants  and  City  Secretary  of  Municipal  Corporation  were  informed to remain present for hearing on 27/03/2012  alongwith original documents and proof.

On  27/03/2012  both  the  applicants  alongwith  their  Advocates and City Secretary of Municipal Corporation  Shri Gajanan Madhusudan Pande remained present for

Page 17

17

hearing.  In the said case, Adv. G.B. Lohiya advanced  argument on behalf  of   Municipal  Corporation,  Akola.  Adv. Santosh Rahate advanced his argument on behalf  of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay  Badone.

          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   

          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   

In  the  affidavit  dt.  14/03/2012  sworn  by  Shri  Sanjay  Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone there  is  no  name  and   signatures  of  witnesses  and  on  14/03/2012  the  said  affidavit  has  been  recorded  at  Sr.no.174/12 by Notary Shri R.R. Deshpande, Adv.  As  per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, the said affidavit  cannot be held as complete unless attested.  Therefore,  there is no sufficient scope to treat the said affidavit of  Shri  Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone as valid.

After considering all the aspects above in totality and  on careful perusal of concerned documents filed in the  case it comes to the notice that, from the entry made  by  Stamp  Vendor  on  the  stamp  papers,  the  stamp  papers appear to have been purchased on 23/02/2012  for the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau.  Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone  attached to  the  proposal  dt.  05/03/2012  submitted  by  applicant  no.1  Shri  Harish  Alimchandani  to  the  Divisional  Commissioner  for  registering the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti sponsored by  Bhartiya Janta Party as per provisions of rule 3 of the  Disqualification  Rules.    Yet  the  date  of  attestation  being not as ‘23/02/2012’ it is “22/02/2012”.  How the  affidavit has been sworn on 22/02/2012 by purchasing  stamp papers  on  23/02/2012  is  an  incomprehensible  aspect.   He filed  Xerox  copies  of  said  affidavit  after  receipt  of  notice  in  the  case  before  the  Divisional  Commissioner.  It is a notable aspect that, Shri Harish  Alimchandani  has  not  submitted  original  copies  of  affidavits during hearing of present case.

Page 18

18

Shri  Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone have been elected from Prabhag no. 34-A and  no.34-B in the Akola Municipal Corporation elections as  independent  candidates.   As  the  applicant  no.1  and  applicant no.2 have failed to file  any kind of  reliable  documents in regard as to in which front created in the  Akola  Municipal  Corporation  Shri  Sanjay  Babulal  Badone  and  Sau.  Madhuri  Sanjay  Badone  have  participated, I have come to the conclusion that it does  not  become  clear  that  definitely  to  which  vanguard/Committee/front  out  of  Mahanagar  Sudhar  Committee sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party or Akola  Vikas  Mahaaghadi  sponsored  by  Bhartiya  Rashtriya  Congress,  Shri  Sanjay  Babulal  Badone  and  Sau.  Madhuri Sanjay Badone are attached.

Therefore, the following order is being passed.

ORDER

(1)  As per provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority  Membership Disqualification Act 1986  and Rule 3(a)  of  the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Membership  Disqualification Rules, 1987, the proposal submitted  by Shri Harish Ratanlalji Alimchandani, Party Leader,  Mahanagar  Sudhar  Samiti,  Akola,  Municipal  Corporation,  Akola  in  prescribed  form  for  registration  of  “Mahanagar  Sudhar  Samiti,  Akola”,  sponsored by  Bhartiya Janata Party on 05/03/2012  for registration in the Register Book of the office of  Divisional Commissioner, is hereby rejected.  

(2)  As per provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority  Membership Disqualification Act 1986  and Rule 3(a)  of  the  Maharashtra  Local  Authority  Membership  Disqualification Rules, 1987, the proposal submitted  by Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad, Party Leader,  Akola  Vikas  Mahaaghadi,  Akola,   Municipal  Corporation,  Akola in prescribed form for registration of “ Akola  Vikas  Mahaaghadi  Akola”,  sponsored  by   Bhartiya  Rashtriya  Congress  Party  on  16/03/2012  for  registration  in  the  Register  Book  of  the  office  of  Divisional Commissioner, is hereby rejected.

Page 19

19

The said order passed today on 28th August, 2012  under my signature and seal.

      Sd/- 28.08.2012        (Ganesh Thakur)

Divisional  Commissioner,  Amravati”

18. We have gone through the above two documents.  

Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner,  

Amravati,  whereby  the  application  for  registration  was  

disposed of, shows that the application of the writ petitioners  

was  rejected  as  affidavits  of  Sanjay  Babulal  Badone  

(respondent no. 14) and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone were  

not  complete.   The  two,  who  were  elected  from Prabhag  

no.31  and  Prabhag  no.  34-B  as  independent  candidates,  

failed to file any document to show as to which group they  

belonged.  Their names figured in two groups.  

19. In  the  order  dated  28.08.2012  the  Divisional  

Commissioner  also  referred  to  a  serious  infirmity  in  

accepting the proposal, as he found that the affidavit was  

sworn to and attested on 22.02.2012, whereas the stamps  

were  purchased  on  23.02.2012  which  the  Divisional  

Commissioner  held  to  be  an  incomprehensible  act  of  the

Page 20

20

proposer.  Such serious infirmities which weighed with the  

Divisional  Commissioner  in  passing  the  order  of  rejection  

dated 28.08.2012 cannot be found fault with.  Considering  

the Scheme of the 1987 Rules, we are convinced that it was  

incumbent  upon  the  Divisional  Commissioner  to  hold  a  

meaningful  exercise  of  scrutinizing  the  proposal  for  

registration  and  pass  a  positive  order  of  registration  and  

then alone the exception carved out under Section 31A(2) of  

the  1949  Act,  even  for  the  limited  purpose  to  get  rid  of  

disqualification  under  the  1987  Rules  can  be  allowed  to  

operate.   Viewed  in  that  respect  also  the  order  dated  

28.08.2012  assumes  greater  significance  and,  therefore,  

unless and until the said order was set aside in the manner  

known to law, the formation of the aghadi as claimed by the  

first respondent could not have come into effect.  

20. It is not disputed that no one challenged the order  

dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, as  

such  the  same  has  attained  finality.   That  being  so,  the  

Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti,  Akola (respondent no.1) cannot

Page 21

21

be said to be a registered group as required under second  

proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 31A of the Act of 1949.  

In our opinion, the High Court has erred in law by ignoring  

the above order of the Divisional Commissioner, and holding  

that  respondent  no.  1  stood  registered.    If  there  was  

objection to registration of an  aghadi,  on the ground that  

names of certain members were falsely or wrongly shown in  

the list,  the Commissioner had no option but to verify the  

same.  And, in such cases, unless the verification is done, an  

aghadi can not be said to have got registered,  by merely  

submitting an application within  one month of  election to  

Municipal Corporation.  Had the writ petitioners challenged  

order  dated  28.08.2012  passed  by  the  Divisional  

Commissioner,  with  the  Resolution  dated  29.04.2013,  the  

situation would have been different.  But in the present case,  

order  of  Divisional  Commissioner  rejecting  application  for  

registration  has  attained  finality,  and  same  cannot  be  

ignored.  As such, writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to  

3  questioning  validity  of  resolution  dated  29.04.2013  was  

liable to be dismissed.

Page 22

22

21. Therefore,  this  appeal  deserves  to  be  allowed.  

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed  and  impugned  order  

dated 14.8.2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition  

no.  2571 of  2013 is  hereby set  aside,  and the Resolution  

dated  29.04.2013  shall  stand  restored.   No  orders  as  to  

costs.  

                         ….………….………………………………J.        [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim  

Kalifulla]

  ….….……….………………………………J.     [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; February 02, 2015.