2012(6) ALL MR 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.A. BOBDE AND MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
Sanjay Devram Bhoir Vs. Divisional Commissioner & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 3733 of 2012
24th July, 2012
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. P.K. DHAKEPHALKAR, Mr. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, Mr. L.M. ACHARYA, Mr. SACHIN DHAKEPHALKAR, SATHYAM ACHARYA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. C.R. SONAWANE, Mr. A.Y. SAKHARE, Mr. N.R. BUBNA, Mr. JANAK DWARKADAS, Mr. S.M. OAK, Mr. SAGAR JOSHI, Mr. A.V. ANTURKAR, Mr. AMIT BORKAR, ZOEB CUTLERLYWALA, SANDIP PATHAK, M/s. ALMT LEGAL
(A) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - It is at par with pre poll Aghadi - Disqualification Act made applicable to members of post poll Aghadi as if it is registered as pre poll Aghadi - Even then provisions of Disqualification Act has no application to act of nomination of councillors on committees or functioning of committees. (Para 7)
(B) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - It is at par with pre poll Aghadi - Admittedly, no information was supplied by constituents of post poll Aghadi in form prescribed for formation of pre poll Aghadi - Disqualification Act and Rules do not require and prescribe that such information must be submitted on formation of post poll Aghadi - Hence, it cannot be said that such post poll Aghadi has not come into existence for not supplying information in prescribed form for pre poll Aghadi. (Para 10)
(C) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - It is at par with pre poll Aghadi - Information relevant to Form I, III was submitted immediately upon election to Corporation - It was necessary for leader of parties to submit information pertaining to formation of post poll Aghadi for purposes of nomination of members to Committee under S.31A - It cannot be said that no Aghadi was formed as its formation was not communicated in Forms meant only for formation of pre poll Aghadi. (Para 11)
(D) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - Petitioner Gat neta wrote about formation of Lokshahi Aghadi - Consent letter with signature of other members was also sent - Divisional Commissioner wrote letter stating that he has received information about formation of Aghadi within time prescribed by law - There is no provision for registration of information of post poll Aaghadi in separate register - Evidence shows formation of Aghadi - Contention that Aghadi was not formed is liable to be rejected. (Para 12)
(E) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - Lokshahi Agadhi, Post poll alliance, formed in Thane Municipal Corporation was duly registered with Divisional Commissioner - Respondents must take into account existence of such Aghadi for purpose of nominating members on committee under S.31A - Contention of Indian National Congress that there could not be formation of Aghadi as Aghadi cannot be formed without act of all members of each constituent party deciding in meeting that their party should join Aghadi - Contention liable to be rejected.
Nowhere have respondents disputed that certain number of councillors belonging to registered and recognized political parties were elected and parties elected their own leaders who have acted on behalf of parties. Letter on letter head of Lokshahi Aghadi in Thane Municipal Corporation addressed to Divisional Commissioner contains signatures of leaders of 3 constituents of Aghadi, including leader of Indian National Congress. It further appears that leader of Indian National Congress has signed another letter informing Divisional Commissioner of names of all members of Indian National Congress Party who have been elected to Corporation and who have joined Lokshahi Aghadi under leadership of petitioner. Letter also contains signature of individual councillors. Leader of Indian National Congress is not entitled to dispute existence or formation of Agadhi because when some members of Lokshahi Aghadi wanted to break away said leader and petitioner jointly filed Disqualification Petition. Such petition can only be filed on basis that Aghadi exists and member thereof has acted contrary to it. Conclusion is Lokshahi Aghadi, post poll alliance was formed in Thane Municipal Corporation and duly registered with Divisional Commissioner and hence respondents are bound to take into account existence of such Aghadi. [Para 13]
(F) Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (1949), S.31A - Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act (1986), S.2 - Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules (1987), R.3 - Post poll Aghadi - Formation of - Recognition to - Contention that there is adequate representation of all constituent parties of Aghadi on Standing Committee - Petitioner states that persons have been nominated by Corporation are arbitrarily selected to show that members of these parties are accommodated - Lokshahi Agadhi, post poll alliance formed in Thane Municipal Corporation was duly registered with Divisional Commissioner - Respondents must take into account existence of such Aghadi for purpose of nominating members on committee under S.31A - Contention in this regard is liable to be rejected. (Para 14)
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J. :- The petitioner - Sanjay Devram Bhoir has approached this court, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 4 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Navi Mumbai, the Thane Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner, Mayor - Thane Municipal Corporation along with the Municipal Secretary to recognize and consider Lokshahi Aghadi as one unit for the purpose of nominating members to various committees mentioned in Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The petitioner has also made a prayer directing the respondent no.1 - Divisional Commissioner not to recognize Indian National Congress as a separate group in Thane Municipal Corporation for the remainder of the tenure i.e. 2012 - 2017.
2. The only question that arises is whether, in fact, an Aghadi known as "Lokshahi Agadhi" has been formed as a post-poll alliance within the meaning of Section 31A of the Act.
3. Section 31A reads as follows:
"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.
(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, nothing contained in this sub-section be construed as preventing the Corporation from nominating on the Committee any member not belonging to any such party or group:
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 Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (Mah. XX of 1987), within a period of one month from the date of notification of election results, form 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."
As is apparent, the provision is enacted to provide for the proportion in which members from various recognized parties or groups should be nominated on the Committees mentioned therein. The main feature of the provision is that the nomination should be in proportion to the strength of said parties or groups in the said Corporation. Not only parties or groups, but the provision takes into account the political reality of recognized and registered parties and groups getting together and forming an Association or an Aghadi after the polls. The second proviso provides that a post-poll Association or Aghadi may be formed by recognized parties or registered parties or groups within one month from the date of the notification of the result notwithstanding the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The proviso provides that from the date of formation of the front or registration, the provisions of that Act will apply to the members of such Aghadi or front which is invariably formed after the poll, as if it is pre-poll Aghadi or front. Strictly speaking, the applicability of the provisions of the Disqualification Act, 1986 have no bearing on the formation of Committees contemplated by Section 31A of the BPMC Act. In any case no question of disqualification of any councillor under the Disqualification Act arises in this case.
4. In the month of February, 2012, the results of the general elections to the Thane Municipal Corporation were declared and the total number of Corporators elected was 130. The party-wise strength of the House was as follows:-
(a) |
Shiv Sena Party | 53 |
(b) |
Nationalist Congress Part | 34 |
(c) |
Indian National Congress | 18 |
(d) |
Bharatiya Janata Party | 8 |
(e) |
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena | 7 |
(f) |
Bahujan Samaj Party | 2 |
(g) |
Republican Party of India | 1 |
(h) |
Independents | 7 |
Total | 130 |
The respective leaders of the parties or Gat Netas submitted Form 1 under Rule 3 (1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 framed under the Disqualification Act, 1986 in respect of each member of their parties.
5. According to the petitioner, within the statutory period of 30 days, permitted by the second proviso to Section 31A of the BPMC Act, the following parties with their respective strength shown against their names formed an Agahdi:
(a) |
Nationalist Congress Part | 34 |
(b) |
Indian National Congress | 18 |
(c) |
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena | 7 |
(d) |
Indpendents | 6 |
This front or Aghadi or Association was recognized as the Lokshahi Aghadi which appointed the petitioner as the leader of Lokshahi Aghadi was a municipal party within the meaning of the term contemplated by Section 2(i) of the Disqualification Act, 1986. Initially, the Aghadi was formed comprising of 34 Nationalist Congress Party members along with 18 Indian National Congress Party members and 6 Independent members and a letter was written on 1.3.2012 by the group leader informing the formation of the said Aghadi to the Divisional Commissioner - respondent no.1, which was received on 6.3.2012, before the statutory period of 30 days expired. Thereafter 7 members of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and one independent member joined the Aghadi and this was communicated on 17.3.2012. It is not disputed that both these communications informing of the formation of and the additions to the Aghadi were sent within 30 days of the elections as required by second proviso to Section 31A.
6. On 19.3.2012, the Divisional Commissioner wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioner that an Aghadi as follows has been formed:-
Sr. No. |
Name of Party/ Aghadi/Group |
Name of Group Leader | Strength of Members | Name of Aghadi | Name of Group Leader |
1 |
Indian Nationalist Congress |
Shri Sanjay Devram Bhoir |
34 | Lokshahi Aghadi | Shri Sanjay Devram Bhoir |
2 |
Indian National Congress |
Shri Ravindra Sadanand Phatak |
18 | ||
3 |
Independent
|
Shri Yasin Ayyub Qureshi | 2 | ||
Smt.Rekhabai Minanath Indise | 2 | ||||
Shri Miraj Naim Khan |
1 | ||||
4 |
Independent | Shri Sanjay Shrinath Pandey |
1 | Lokshahi Aghadi |
Shri Sanjay Devram Bhoir |
5 |
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena | Shri Sudhakar Waman Chauhan | 7 | Lokshahi Aghadi | Shri Sanjay Devram Bhoir |
It appears that thereafter an objection was taken by Shri Manikrao Thakare, President of Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee in a letter dated 16..4.2012 addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan calling upon the Divisional Commissioner to treat the Councillors of Indian National Congress as a separate group and not as part of Lokshahi Aghadi. A letter to the same effect was also addressed by the group leader of the Indian National Congress alleging that the members of the Indian National Congress did not form any group or Aghadi with the members of the other constituents i.e. Nationalist Congress Party and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and since all the Corporators of the Indian National Congress did not participate in the meetings, no such Aghadi has come into existence and, therefore, the authority should not act on the basis that an Aghadi has been formed. Thereafter, in a meeting of the Corporation held on 20.4.2012, it appears that the Mayor ignored the names of members given by the petitioner, who claimed that he was nominated as leader of the Aghadi for the purposes of nomination and while adjourning the meeting announced the passing of the subject at Item No.3 supposed to be dealing with the formation of a Standing Committee. It is not disputed that the actual formation of the Standing Committee and the names of its members and why they were nominated on the Committee, is not reflected in the minutes which are before the court nor is there any separate resolution produced by any of the parties to the effect that certain persons have been nominated on the committees in a particular meeting. We may note that it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 that the committees have been constituted by ignoring the Aghadi which according to them has not been formed at all.
7. Thus, the question that arises is whether an Aghadi, as contemplated by Section 31A of the BPMC Act has been formed and registered. Sub-section (2) is reproduced here again for the sake of convenience and reads as follows:-
"(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, nothing contained in this sub-section be construed as preventing the Corporation from nominating on the Committee any member not belonging to any such party or group:
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 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."
It is common ground that under Sub-section (2), the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or groups must be taken into account for nominating members in proportion to the strength of such parties or groups in the Corporation. The second proviso enables the recognized parties or registered parties or groups and even independent councilors to form an Aghadi or front within a period of one month from the date of notification of the results. This formation of an Aghadi may be done notwithstanding anything contained in the Disqualification Act 1986 in view of the non obstante clause therein. The last part of the proviso provides that this post-poll Aghadi which is formed shall be treated as a pre-poll Aghadi or Front upon its registration and further that the provisions of the Disqualification Act 1986 shall apply to the members of such Aghadi or front. We may observe at this stage that though the Disqualification Act, 1986 is made applicable to the members of the post-poll Aghadi, as if it is registered as pre-poll Aghadi, it does not appear that the provisions of the Disqualification Act have any application to the act of nomination of councillors on the committees or the functioning of the committees. It was feebly suggested by Mr. Oak that if a councillor accepts a nomination to a committee contrary to any permission by the party, it would amount to voluntary giving up of his membership of such political party or Aghadi by Section 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Act. It is not possible to accept this contention since it is not shown how it can be inferred from the acceptance of a nomination on a committee that a person has voluntarily giving up the membership of his political party. However, it is not necessary to consider this argument at all in the present case since there is no allegation of any of the members having been disqualified on the ground that they have accepted a nomination contrary to their primary membership. Suffice it to say that it is not strictly necessary to consider the effect of registration of a post-poll Aghadi under the Disqualification Act as contemplated by the second proviso.
8. Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 31A does not delineate or lay down the procedure for formation and registration of a post-poll Aghadi. According to the learned counsel, a reference to the Maharashtra Local Authority Disqualification Act, 1986 or the Rules thereunder does not show any procedure for registration of a post-poll Aghadi. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the stand of the respondent - Mayor that since Form Nos.III and IV under the Disqualification Rules were not filled up by members or the leaders of the post-poll Aghadi and therefore no Aghadi was formed is a hollow stand which cannot stand the scrutiny of the law. It is necessary, therefore, to see whether law provides for any procedure for formation and registration of a post-poll Aghadi and whether it can be said that such an Aghadi has been formed for the purposes of Section 31A.
Section 2(a) of the Disqualification Act defines "aghadi" as follows:
"(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."
This clearly refers to a pre-poll Aghadi. Section 2(i) defines "municipal party" as follows:-
2. Definition. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(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 councilor of a Municipal Corporation, the group consisting of all the councilors 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 councilor of a Municipal Council, the group consisting of all the councilors of the Municipal Corporation for the time being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said Explanation."
9. The rest of the provisions of this Act deal with the circumstances on which a councillor may incur disqualification and the action for such disqualification. The rules framed under the Disqualification Act in 1987 provide for the formation of a pre-poll Aghadi and imposes the requirement of the leader of a municipal party to give the information of such formation to the Commissioner. Rule 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) provide as follows:
"3. Information to be furnished by a leader of a Party.- (1) leader of each municipal party or a Zilla Parishad in relation to a councillor and the leader of Panchayat Samiti in relation to a member (other than a municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party or a Panchayat Samiti party consisting of only one member) shall, within thirty days from the date of commencement of these rules or, where such party is formed after such date, within thirty days from the date of its formation, or in either case, within such further period as the Commissioner, in the case of a councillor of a Municipal Corporation, or the Collector, in the case of any other Councillor or member may for sufficient reason allow, furnish the following information to the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, to the Collector, namely:-
(a) a statement in writing containing the names of members of such party together with other relevant particulars regarding such members as prescribed in Form I, and the names and designations of the members of such party who have been authorized by it for communicating with the Commissioner or, as the case may be, Collector for the purposes of these rules;
(b) a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such or a Constitution or by any other name), of the municipal party, Zilla Parishad party or the Panchayat Samiti party concerned, as the case may be; and
(c) where such party has any separate set of rules and regulation (whether known as such or as constitution or/by any other name) also a copy of such rules and regulations.
Sub-rule 4 casts a duty on the leader of the municipal party to communicate any change in the information in relation to a member earlier furnished by him. Rule 5 provides for the maintenance of a register for information relating to councillors or members and reads as follows:-
"5. Register of information as to councillors or members. - (1) The Commissioner in the case of a councillor or a Municipal Corporation and the Collector, in the case of any other councillor or member, shall maintain in Form IV, a register based on the information furnished under rules (3) and (4) in relation to the councillor of a municipal party, Zilla Parishad party, or as the case may be, member of a Panchayat Samity party.
(2) The information in relation to such councillor in respect of a municipal party, a Zilla Parishad party, and in relation to each member in respect of a Panchayat Samiti party shall be recorded on a separate page in the register."
10. Form I prescribed by the Rules correspondingly provides for submission of the information of the name of the member, his father's / husband's name, address and the name of the constituency from which he is elected. The form prescribes that there should be a signature of the leader of the party. Form III which prescribes the information to be submitted by the individual councillor provides for the submission of the information of the name of the member, his father's/ husband's name, address and date of election. Item 5 of Form III requires candidate to mention the affiliation, if any, to a political party or Aghadi or front as on the date of election or nomination and the date of signing the said form. The Rules read together with this last piece of information required by the form, thus clearly stipulate that the leaders of the parties and the elected councillors must supply information only in relation to a pre-poll Aghadi and not a post-poll Aghadi. Indeed, that is why it was necessary to enact Section 31A to provide that a post-poll Aghadi when formed shall be treated on par with a pre-poll Aghadi for the purpose of disqualification. It is clear, in this case, that no information has been submitted by the constituents of the post-poll Aghadi in the form prescribed by the Disqualification Rules for the formation of a pre-poll Aghadi. In our view, the Disqualification Act and the Rules do not require and prescribe that such information be submitted on the formation of a post-poll Aghadi. It cannot, therefore, be said that such an Aghadi has not come into existence on this count alone.
11. It is true that every elected councillor and the leader of the party is bound to submit the prescribed information in Forms I and III to the Commissioner upon his election. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Commissioner that such information relevant to Forms I and III were submitted immediately upon the election to the Corporation. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that it was necessary for the leaders of the parties to submit information pertaining to the formation of a post-poll Aghadi for the purposes of nomination of members to the Committee under Section 31A again in accordance with Disqualification Rules and the forms prescribed thereunder. It is well settled that statute regulating elections rights and prescribing disqualifications should be construed strictly. It would be harder to hold that no Aghadi is formed only because its formation was not communicated in Forms not meant for such communication but meant only for the formation of a pre-poll Aghadi under the Disqualification Act.
12. It was, however, contended by Mr. Dwarkadas, the learned counsel appearing for the Mayor belonging to the Shivsena and Mr. Anturkar, the learned counsel appearing for the leader of the Indian National Congress that no post-poll Aghadi ever came into existence as contemplated by Section 31A. In order to examine this submission, it may be noted, at the out-set, as observed earlier, that no particular procedure prescribed by the Act or the Rules upon compliance of which it may be said that an Aghadi came into existence. It is not disputed that by a letter dated 1/3/2012 the petitioner -Sanjay Bhoir acting as the Gat Neta of the Lokshahi Aghadi wrote a letter informing the Divisional Commissioner - respondent no.1 that councilors of the parties of Nationalist Congress Party, Indian National Congress, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Independents have formed the Lokshahi Aghadi comprising of 57 councillors. However, apparently at that stage the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena had not joined. It appears that members of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and one Independent joined later, as is apparent from the letter dated 17/3/2012 addressed by the leader of that party to the Divisional Commissioner informing him of the joining by 8 members (7 MNS + 1 Independent) in the Aghadi as referred to earlier. This letter is accompanied by consent letters with signatures of the said members. On 1/3/2012 itself there is another letter on record signed by the petitioner - Sanjay Bhoir and addressed to the Divisional Commissioner informing him that the Lokshahi Aghadi was formed at a meeting of the leaders of the parties and independents. This letter further states that information regarding the members has already been submitted. The letter further request the Commissioner to register the formation of an Aghadi. After these letters were received by the Divisional Commissioner, the said Commissioner wrote a letter dated 19/3/2012 stating that he had received information within the time prescribed by law regarding formation of an Aghadi in accordance with provisions of the BPMC Act. The letter communicated the names of the leaders of the various parties and the fact that the information was communicated to the Divisional Commissioner by the said leader. The letter further clearly mentioned the numerical strength of each of the constituent who formed the Aghadi. We thus find that there is cogent and reliable evidence to indicate the formation of an Aghadi and the communication of such information to the Divisional Commissioner with a request that he should register the existence of the Aghadi. This view is further supported by the fact that the Divisional Commissioner himself perceived the formation of this Aghadi upon receiving the letter and communicated its formation to the Municipal Commissioner i.e. Respondent No. 3. It is true, as contended on behalf of the respondents, that there is no registration of the existence of an Aghadi, but having regard to the fact that there is no provision for such registration of the information in a separate register in the Rules, as we have noticed above. This fact cannot result in the inference that no Aghadi was formed at all. In fact, therefore, we find that such an Aghadi was formed.
13. At this juncture, we may note that Mr. Anturkar, the learned counsel for the President of the Indian National Congress in the municipal party submitted that there could not be formation of an Aghadi because an Aghadi can only be formed by the act of all the members of each constituent party deciding in a meeting that their party should join an Aghadi. According to the learned counsel, the only evidence on record is a letter by the leader of the Aghadi that all the leaders of the constituent parties have decided to form an Aghadi. We are not inclined to consider this submission since no where have the respondents disputed that a certain number of councilors belonging to a registered and recognized political parties were elected and that the parties elected their own leaders who have acted on behalf of the parties. On the other hand, as pointed out by Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that one of the letters dated 1/3/2012 on the letter-head of the Lokshahi Aghadi in the Thane Municipal Corporation addressed to the Divisional Commissioner contains the signatures of the leaders of three constituents of the Aghadi, including the leader of Indian National Congress. It further appears that the leader of the Indian National Congress has signed another letter informing the Divisional Commissioner of the names of all the members of the Indian National Congress party who have been elected to the Corporation and who have joined the Lokshahi Aghadi under the leadership of the petitioner - Sanjay Bhoir. The letter also contains the signatures of the individual councillors. Mr. Dhakephalkar further rightly points out that the leader of the Indian National Congress is not entitled to dispute the existence or formation of an Agahdi because when some members of the Lokshahi Aghadi wanted to break away the said leader and the petitioner - Sanjay Bhoir jointly filed a Disqualification Petition before the respondent no.1 for disqualification. Such a petition can only be filed on the basis that an Aghadi exists and a member thereof has acted contrary to it. We thus have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a Lokshahi Aghadi, a post-poll alliance was formed in the Thane Municipal Corporation and was duly registered with the Divisional Commissioner and that, therefore, the respondents are bound to take into account the existence of such an Aghadi for the purpose of nominating members on the Committee under Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
14. Mr. Oak, the learned counsel appearing for the leader of the House in Writ Petition No. 4749 of 2012 submitted that the court should deny relief to the petitioner on the ground that, in fact, there is an adequate representation of all the constituent parties of the Aghadi on the Standing Committee in that 8 councillors i.e. 5 Nationalist Congress Party, 2 Indian National Congress and one Maharashtra Navnirman Sena have been nominated on the Standing Committee. Mr. Dhakephalkar the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these persons have been nominated by the Corporation not according to the recognition by the Lokshahi Aghadi but have been arbitrarily selected with a view to show that members of these parties have been accommodated. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Oak in the view we have taken.
15. Hence, the petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
16. At this stage Mr. Borkar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 prays for stay of the judgment. We see no reasons to grant such a stay. Prayer is rejected.