http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: SADASHIV H. PATIL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VITHAL D. TEKE & ORS.!Ashok Y. Patil & Ors.VsDistrict Collector, Satara & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/08/2000

BENCH: CJI  , R.C. LAhoti & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

R.C. Lahoti, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Leave granted in S.L.P.C) No.21085 of 1998.

   In  all  these  appeals   the  controversy  arising  for decision is whether certain members of the municipal council have incurred disqualification on ground of defection.

   The    Maharashtra     Local      Authority     Members Disqualification  Act, 1986 (Act No.20 of 1987) (hereinafter the   Act,   for  short)  was   enacted   to   provide   for disqualification  of members of certain local authorities on the  ground  of  defection and for  matters  incidental  and connected therewith.  In exercise of the powers conferred by Section  9  of  the Act, the Government of  Maharashtra  has framed  the  Rules known as the Maharashtra Local  Authority Members  Disqualification  Rules,  1987  (hereinafter  the Rules, for short).

   We  will refer to a few relevant provisions from the Act and  the  Rules insofar as are necessary for the purpose  of@@           JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ the  appeals  before  us.  Section 2 is  the  interpretation@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ clause.  The relevant definitions are 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;

   xxx        xxx       xxx       xxx

               (e)  local authority means -

                      (i)  a Municipal Corporation,                        (ii) a Municipal  Council;                       (iii) a Zilla Parishad; or                       (iv) a Panchayat Samiti;

   xxx          xxx                xxx               xxx

   (i)  municipal  Party, in relation to  the  councillor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

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;

   (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.

3.  Disqualification on ground of defection.

   (1)  Subject  to the provisions of sections 4 and  5,  a councillor  or a member belonging to any political party  or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for being a councillor or a member-

   (a)  if  he has voluntarily given up his  membership  of such political party or aghadi or front;  or

   (b)  if he votes or abstains from voting in any  meeting of  a  Municipal  Corporation,   Municipal  Council,   Zilla Parishad  or, as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti  contrary to  any direction issued by the political party or aghadi or front  to  which  he belongs or by any person  or  authority authorised by any of them in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party or  aghadi or front, person or authority and such voting  or abstention  has not been condoned by such political party or aghadi  or  front, person or authority within  fifteen  days from the date of such voting or abstention :

   Provided  that, such voting or abstention without  prior permission  from such party or aghadi or front, at  election of  any  office, authority or committee under  any  relevant municipal  law  or  the   Maharashtra  Zilla  Parishads  and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not be condoned under this clause;

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section-

   (a) a person elected as a councillor, or as the case may be,  a  member  shall be deemed to belong to  the  political party  or aghadi or front, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such councillor or member;

   (b) a nominated or co-opted councillor or member shall-

   (i)  Where  he  is a member of any  political  party  or@@                                                    JJJJJJJJJ aghadi  or  front on the date of his nomination, or as  case@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ may be, co-option as such councillor, or as the case may be, member be deemed to belong to such political party or aghadi or front,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

   (ii)  in  any  other case, be deemed to  belong  to  the Political  party or aghadi or front of which he becomes,  or as  the case may be, first becomes a member of such party or aghadi  or  front before the expiry of six months  from  the date   on  which  he  is   nominated  or  co-opted  as  such councillor, or as the case may be,member;

   (c)  a  nominated member, in relation to  a  Panchayat Samiti,  includes an associate member, referred to in clause (c)  of  sub-section  (1) of section 57 of  the  Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

   (2) An elected councillor, or as the case may be, member who  has been elected as such otherwise than as a  candidate set  up  by  political  party or aghadi or  front  shall  be disqualified  for being a councillor, or as the case may be, a  member if he joins any political party or aghadi or front after such election.

   (3)  A nominated or co-opted councillor, or as the  case may be, member shall be disqualified for being a councillor, or  as  the case may be, if he joins any political party  or aghadi or front after the expiry of six months from the date on  which he is nominated or co-opted as such councillor, or as the case may be, member.

   (4)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions  of this section a person who on the commencement of  this  Act,  is a councillor, or as the case  may  be,  a member  (whether  elected or nominated or co- opted as  such councillor or member) shall -

   (a) where he was a member of a political party or aghadi or  front  immediately before such commencement, be  deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (1), to have been elected as a councillor, or as the case may be, a member as a candidate set up by such political party or aghadi or front;

   (b)  in  any  other  case, be deemed to  be  an  elected councillor,  or  as  the case may be, member  who  has  been elected  as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political  party  or  aghadi  or front for  the  purpose  of sub-section  (2),  or as the case may be, be deemed to be  a nominated  or co- opted councillor, or as the case may be, a member for the purpose of sub-section (3).

[emphasis supplied]

   Under  Section  7 any question arising as to  whether  a Councillor  or member has become subject to disqualification under  the Act has to be referred to the Commissioner in the case  of  Councillor of a Municipal Corporation and  to  the Collector  in  the case of any other Councillor  or  member. Finality   has  been  attached  to   the  decision  of   the Commissioner  or Collector.  The jurisdiction of Civil Court has been excluded by Section 8 from entertaining any dispute as to disqualification.

   Under  Rule  3  the leader of each  Municipal  Party  in relation  to a Councillor shall within 30 days from the date of  its  formation  or within an extended time  furnish  the following information to the Collector :-

   (a)  A  statement  in writing containing  the  names  of members   of  such  party   together  with  other   relevant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

particulars  regarding such members as prescribed in From  I and  the names and designations of the members of such party who  have  been authorised by it for communicating with  the Collector for the purpose of the rules;

   (b) A copy of the rules and regulations of the Municipal Party;

   (c)  A copy of rules and regulations of the party.

   Certain  changes  in the information furnished are  also required to be communicated with which we are not concerned.@@          JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Under Rule 4 every Councillor in relation to Municipal Party@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJ is  required  to  furnish  a statement  of  particulars  and declaration  in Form III wherein he is required to  disclose his  party  affiliation also.  A summary of  information  so furnished shall be published in the Government Gazette.  The information  is  also required to be entered in  a  register maintained by the Collector in Form IV.  Other provisions in the  rules  relate to the procedure by which a reference  of any   question   as  to  a  Councillor  having  suffered   a disqualification shall be made, dealt with and disposed of.

   In the appeals before us we are required to deal with an Aghadi  or  front relating to Municipal Council.   We  would therefore  analyse the provisions of the Act from the  angle of  Municipal  Council leaving aside Municipal  Corporation, Zilla  Parishad  or Panchayat Samiti.  In the scheme of  the Act, it is clear that the formation of an Aghadi or front by a  group  of  persons must precede the election to  a  local authority.   The politico-legal doctrine of disqualification by  defection has been percolated to the elections of  local authorities  in  Maharashtra by enacting the Act.   The  Act proposes to encourage the elections being fought by group of persons  bringing themselves together so as to have a common purpose  and  by  contesting  election on  a  common  symbol propagating  the  principles  and purpose which  which  that group proposes to administer the local authority if returned to  power by the electorate.  Such group of persons having a common  ideology  though  not  necessarily  belonging  to  a political  party  of  State  or   National  level  may  form themselves into a party, the immediate purpose whereof is to set  up candidates for election to the local authority.  The collective  name  assigned  to such group of persons  is  an Aghadi  or  front.  On the elections being  accomplished,  a Municipal  Council  comes  into   existence  which  includes elected Councillors belonging to any political party, Aghadi or  front.   Once a candidate set up by a  political  party, Aghadi  or front is declared elected he shall be fictionally deemed  to be belonging to the political party or Aghadi  or front  by  which  he  was  set up  as  a  candidate  at  the elections.   He  has no option in the matter.   The  elected Councillors of a particular political party, Aghadi or front constitute  a Municipal Party identified with any  political party  or  Aghadi or front by which the candidature of  such Councillors  was  sponsored.   The Municipal  Party  gets  a statutory recognition.  Rule 3 contemplates a leader of such Municipal Party being elected or appointed who shall furnish within 30 days from the date of its formation a statement in writing in Form I being filed with the Collector wherein the names  of  members  of such party(which  means  a  municipal party) shall be mentioned.  The statement shall also mention the  names  and  designation of the members  of  such  party

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

authorised to communicate with the Collector.  A copy of the rules   and   regulations(whether  known  as   such   or   a constitution  or  by any other name) of the Municipal  Party and  of  the parent party, Aghadi or front are to  be  filed with  the  Collector.   There  is a  system  of  cross-check provided  by the Rules.  Not only a statement by the  leader of  Municipal Party is to be filed under Rule 3(1)(a), every Councillor  in relation to Municipal Party shall, before  he has  taken his seat, furnish a statement of particulars  and declaration in Form III.  The information so furnished shall be  published  in  the Maharashtra  Government  Gazette  and subject  to  rectification  of such discrepancy  as  may  be pointed  out  and necessary corrigendum if  necessary  being published   in  the  Gazette,   the  information  shall   be maintained  in the records of the Collector in a register in From  IV  under  Rule  5.  In this manner  the  evidence  of formation  of a Municipal Party comes into existence and any doubts  or  disputes relating to formation of  a  particular Municipal  Party,  and  the members thereof along  with  the requisite particulars furnished, filed, notified and entered in the register are ruled out.

   The  disqualification  with  which we are  concerned  is contemplated  by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section  3 of the Act.  Voting or abstaining from voting in any meeting of  the Municipal Council may entail disqualification,  if:- 1)  such  voting or abstention is contrary to any  direction issued  by  (a)  the political party or Aghadi or  front  to which  he  belongs,  or  (b)  by  any  person  or  authority authorised by the political party or Aghadi or front in this behalf;   2) such voting or abstention is not accompanied by a  prior  permission  of such political party or  Aghadi  or front or person or authority having been obtained previously or  condoned  subsequently within 15 days from the  date  of such  voting or abstention.  Condoning is not permissible if such  voting  or  abstention  is   not  preceded  by   prior permission  and  is  relatable to election  of  any  office, authority  or  committee under the relevant  Municipal  Law. Thus,  the  power to issue a direction, popularly  called  a whip, in order to attract penalty of disqualification has to be  issued  either  by the political party or by  Aghadi  or front  to which the Councillor belongs.  The political party or  Aghadi or front may act collectively or may act  through any  person  or authority.  In the later case the person  or authority  must  be  authorised by the  political  party  or Aghadi  or  front  in  this behalf, i.e.,  for  issuing  any direction  (whip).  If the political party, Aghadi or  front has  any  rules  or regulations whether known as such  or  a constitution   or  called  by  any   other  name  then   the authorisation  of the person or authority can be  determined by  looking  into such document which would be available  on the   record  of  the  Collector   having  been   filed   as accompanying the statement in Form I, under Rule 3 (1), else the  factum of such authorisation in this behalf having been given  to  the person or authority issuing the direction  or whip  shall  have  to be proved to the satisfaction  of  the Collector dealing with a reference under Section 7 read with Rules 6, 7 and 8.

   Having  so  stated  the law, briefly and to  the  extent relevant  for  our purpose, we now proceed to deal with  the@@                JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ appeals before us.@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

   Brief  facts and controversy in C.A.   Nos.6266-6668/98. Janta  Aghadi was constituted in the locality known as  Vita for  the  purpose  of  contesting  elections  for  Municipal Council,  Vita.   In  the  year   1996  the  elections  were announced  for  the  purpose of electing Councillors  for  a period  of  five years.  There were 19 wards.  Janta  Aghadi set  up  19  candidates,  one from  each  ward.   The  rival political  group  was  Vikas  Aghadi which also  set  up  19 candidates.   Janta Aghadi candidates were allotted a common symbol,  namely,  motorcar.  Out of the 19  candidates  of Janta  Aghadi,  12 were declared elected.  They were  issued with  election certificates.  All the elected Councillors of Janta  Aghadi  submitted the requisite information  in  Form No.III  to  the  Collector as required by  Rule  4(1).   The information   was  entered  into   the   relevant   register maintained  by  the  Collector  and  also  notified  in  the Government   Gazette.    Meeting  of   the   newly   elected Councillors  for holding election for the post of  President for  a  term  of  one  year was  scheduled  to  be  held  on 19.12.1996  which  was held and President was elected.   The controversy  propped up when the time reached for electing a President for the next term.

   A  meeting of Janta Aghadi Councillors of Vita Municipal Council was convened to take place at 4 p.m.  on 16.12.1997.@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ The  appellant,  Sadashiv  Hanmantrao Patil was  elected  as@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Paksha  Pratod, i.e., Party Spokesman.  It is not disputed that  the  meeting  was attended by Vithal  Dhondiram  Teke, Badshah  Akbar  Tamboli  and Smt.   Lakmibai  Waman  Chothe, respondent nos.  1, 2 and 3.  It was resolved that Nandkumar Baburao  Patil  shall  be the official  candidate  of  Janta Aghadi for the post of President and the appellant, Sadashiv Hanmantrao  Patil  shall  fill in the nomination form  as  a substitute  candidate.   In spite of such resolution  Vithal Dhondiram  Teke,  respondent No.1, filed his own  nomination for the post of President proposed by Badshah Akbar Tamboli, respondent  no.2.   Nandkumar B.  Patil and  Sadashivrao  H. Patil  also  filed  their  nominations as  the  primary  and substitute  candidates  for  the post of  the  President  as resolved  in the meeting of Municipal Party of Janta Aghadi. On  15.12.1997,  two  directions,  popularly  known  in  the political  parlance as whip, were issued.  One direction was issued to Vithal Dhondiram Teke, respondent no.1 and Badshah Akbar  Tamboli, respondent no.2 asking them to withdraw  the nomination  and the proposal respectively for candidature of the respondent no.1 for the post of President as having been filed  in violation of the resolution passed at the  meeting of  Municipal  Party of Janta Aghadi.  This direction  bears the  signatures of one Hanumant Rao who claims to be  leader of  the political party known as Janta Aghadi, Vita.  It  is also signed by Sadashiv Patil, the appellant in the capacity of  Janta  Aghadi Chief/Leader of Municipal Party.   Another direction  (whip)  dated  15.12.1997 was issued to  all  the Municipal  Councillors  of  Janta Aghadi directing  them  to remain  present  at  the meeting of Vita  Municipal  Council scheduled  to  be  held on 16.12.1997 and to  cast  vote  in favour  of  the  authorised  candidate  nominated  by  Janta Aghadi,  namely,  Nandkumar  Baburao Patil.   This  whip  is signed  by the appellant, Sadashiv Hanumantrao Patil in  the capacity  of party leader, Janta Aghadi, Vita.  These  whips were  served  on all the 12 Councillors belonging  to  Janta Aghadi.    Copies   of  the  whips   were  served   on   the Sub-Divisional  Officer who was to conduct the elections  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

question  and  were  also pasted on a Board  placed  at  the entrance  of  the  meeting  hall.    The  validity  of   the nomination  filed by respondent no.1 was objected to on  the ground  of defiance of the whips issued by Janta Aghadi  but the  objection  was  overruled.    The  election  was  held. Nandkumar  Patil,  the  official candidate of  Janta  Aghadi received  9 votes as against 10 votes received by Vithal  D. Teke,  the  respondent  no.1.  He was  declared  elected  as President of the Municipal Council.  The respondent nos.1, 2 and  3  voted for the respondent no.1.  A meeting  of  Janta Aghadi  was held on 19.12.1997.  It was unanimously resolved not  to condone the defiance of whip by respondent nos.1,  2 and  3.  The appellant and two other members of Janta Aghadi made a reference for disqualifying respondent nos.  1, 2 and 3 from the membership of the Municipal Council under Section 3 of the Act.  After affording the respondent nos.  1, 2 and 3  an  opportunity  of  hearing and holding  an  enquiry  as contemplated  by  the  Act  and  the  Rules,  the  Collector declared  the respondent nos.  1, 2 and 3 disqualified under the  provisions of the Act.  The three respondents preferred three  writ petitions before the High Court which have  been heard  and  disposed of by a common order impugned in  these appeals.   The High Court has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 22.6.1998 passed by the Collector.

   Shri  Uday Lalit, the learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that a clear case of voting by respondent nos.1, 2 and  3  contrary  to the direction issued by  the  political party to which respondent nos.  1, 2 and 3 belonged was made out  attracting applicability of Section 3 (1)(b) and  hence the  High  Court  was  not justified in  allowing  the  writ petitions  and setting aside the well reasoned and  detailed order  of the Collector.  The learned counsel for respondent nos.1,  2 and 3 has supported the order of the High Court on very  many  grounds.  For the purpose of these  appeals,  it would  suffice to deal with only one of the pleas raised  on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in support of the order of the High Court.

A finding  as  to  disqualification under the Act  has  the effect  of unseating a person from an elected office held by him  pursuant to his victory at the polls in accordance with democratic procedure of constituting a local authority.  The consequences  befall not only him as an individual but  also the  constituency represented by him which would cease to be represented  on  account  of his having  been  disqualified. Looking  at  the penal consequences flowing from an  elected Councillor  being  subjected  to  disqualification  and  its repercussion  on  the functioning of the local body as  also the  city  or  township  governed  by  the  local  body  the provisions  have  to  be  construed  strictly.   A  rigorous compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be  shown to have taken place while dealing with a reference under Section 7 of the Act.

   In Civil Appeal Nos.6266-6268/98 no rules or regulations of  Janta  Aghadi  are  shown to have been  filed  with  the Collector.   The record does not show that any such rules or regulations exist.  Had they been there an effort could have been  made to find out authorisation to issue whip  having been  provided  therein.   During the course of  hearing  we asked  the  learned  counsel for the appellant to  show  any resolution  of  Janta Aghadi authorising the signatories  of the  whip  to issue the whip.  No such resolution was  filed before the Collector or the High Court and not even shown to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

us.   The  contents  of  the whip do not  also  contain  any recital spelling out the existence of any such authorisation which also goes to show that there was no such authorisation given.   In  the absence of proof of the signatories of  the whip having been authorised by the Janta Aghadi to issue the whip   the   violation  thereof   would  not   attract   the applicability  of  Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.  May be  that the  party,  Aghadi  or  front had  resolved  to  sponsor  a particular  persons  candidature at the  election.   Acting contrary  to such resolution, howsoever strongly worded, may render  its member liable to disciplinary proceedings at the party  level.   But to incur disqualification under the  Act there  must be a direction issued and such direction must be either by the party, Aghadi or front to which the Councillor proceeded  against belongs or be by any person or  authority authorised  in  this  behalf.   Mere  resolution  is  not  a substitute  for direction.  On this single ground alone  the judgment of the High Court deserves to be maintained.

   Brief  facts  and controversy in appeal arising  out  of S.L.P.(C) No.21085/98.

   Elections for constituting Municipal Council, Karad were held on 1.12.1996.  Prior to the election a group of persons@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ formed  a  party  under the name of Nagar Vikas  Aghadi  and@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ contested the election on the common symbol of cycle.  The Aghadi  had  set  up  20 candidates out  of  which  11  were elected.   The  names  of these 11 persons as  belonging  to Aghadi  were submitted to the District Collector as required in  Form-Annexure  I.   The 11  Councillors  also  submitted particulars  and declaration in Form III as required by Rule 4.   The  District  Collector  registered  the  names  in  a register  maintained for the purpose.  The requisite gazette notification  was also made on 16.1.1997.  In the meeting of the  Municipal  Council  held on  17.12.1996  Smt.   Archana Patel,  a councillor set up by Aghadi was elected  unopposed as  President of the Municipal Council, Karad for a term  of one  year.   The controversy relates to the time  when  this term  of  one year was coming to an end and election of  the President  for the next term was due to be held.  A  meeting of  the  Aghadi  took  place  on  18.10.1997.   All  the  11 Councillors  belonging  to  the Aghadi participated  in  the meeting.   A few independent Municipal Councillors and a few others  were also present at the meeting.  In this meeting a unanimous  resolution was passed resolving that Dr.   Erram, the President of the Aghadi, i.e., the parent body which had set up the candidates for election shall have power to issue whip  to  the  members and in his absence Mr.   Pawaskar,  a Councillor  would have power to issue the whip.  Dr.   Erram was  not  a  Municipal  councillor.  On  6.12.1997  again  a meeting  of  Aghadi  took  place   in  which  all  Municipal Councillors  of  the Aghadi were present.  The  meeting  was also  attended to by two independent Councillors, 2  coopted Councillors and 2 supporters of the Aghadi.  In this meeting a  unanimous  resolution  was  passed that  at  the  ensuing meeting  of  the Municipal Council scheduled to be  held  on 12.12.1997  for  electing  President  of  the  Aghadi,  Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde shall be the candidate of the Aghadi. It  was  further  resolved that  the  Municipal  Councillors should positively remain present at the meeting and vote for the official candidate of the Nagar Vikas Aghadi, i.e., Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde.  The Municipal Councillors of Aghadi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

were ordered not to remain absent from the meeting and not to  cast  any invalid vote nor abstain from voting which  if done  shall  be considered to be the violation of whip.   In terms  of  the  resolution  intimations  were  sent  to  the Municipal  Councillors  belonging  to Aghadi signed  by  Dr. D.S.  Erram.  The whip was sent by post under certificate of posting  and  also published in local newspaper Daily  Aikya dated  9.12.1997 on the front page along with the photograph of  candidate  Shri Shinde.  It was displayed on the  notice board of municipal council.  We need not further belabour on this aspect as communication or knowledge of the whip to the appellants  has been held proved by the Collector as also by the  High  Court and not seriously disputed at  the  hearing before  us.   On  11.12.1997   the  Collector  and  Election Officer, Karad was informed that Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde was  the  official candidate of the Aghadi for the  post  of President and whip to that effect has also been issued.  The intimation is signed by Dr.  Erram and Shri Pawaskar both in the  capacity  of  President, Nagar Vikas Aghadi  and  party leader Nagar Vikas Aghadi respectively.

   The  whip issued to the Municipal Councillors was posted to  their respective addresses under Certificate of Posting. In  the  meeting  of  the Municipal  Council  held  on  12th December,  1997,  Smt.   Balutai  Bhimrao  Suryawanshi,  the appellant  no.4  offered  her candidature for  the  post  of President  in opposition to Shri Ravindra Mantri Shinde, the official  candidate  of  the Aghadi and  was  also  declared elected.   Smt.  Balutai secured 16 votes while Shri  Shinde the  official candidate of Aghadi secured 10 votes.  All the four appellants voted for Smt.  Balutai.  Another meeting of the  Municipal Council was to be held on 15th December, 1997 wherein  certain  important resolutions were to  be  tabled. Prior  to the meeting of the Municipal Council, a meeting of the  Aghadi was convened on 10th December, 1997 wherein also a whip was issued giving directions in regard to the pattern of voting to be followed by the Municipal Councillors of the Aghadi.   The  appellants defied the whip and voted  to  the contrary.

   Shri Pawaskar who was one of the signatories to the whip moved  the Collector, Satara complaining of disqualification under  Section  3(1)(b)  having been incurred  by  the  four appellants.  The Collector after holding the enquiry arrived at  a  finding  upholding the complaint  and  declaring  the appellants disqualified from the membership of the Municipal Council  under Section 7 of the Act.  The appellants put  in issue  the  order of the Collector by filing  writ  petition before  the  High  Court of Bombay.  The petition  has  been dismissed  upholding the findings recorded by the Collector. The  aggrieved  four Municipal Councillors have  filed  this appeal by special leave.

   The  first  submission  made by Shri  V.A.   Mohta,  the learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants  is  that  the meeting held on 10.12.1997 cannot be said to be a meeting of Aghadi  or front and therefore any resolution passed therein was not binding on the appellants.  We find no merit in this submission.   The  meeting  was  attended   to  by  all  the Councillors  belonging  to  the Aghadi.  A few  others  also participated  in the meeting.  The resolution was unanimous. Nothing  has been brought on record to suggest if there were any  members  other than those present and participating  in the  meeting or those who were informed of the meeting so as to  hold  that the meeting could not be called a meeting  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

the  Aghadi or front.  The resolution passed was  unanimous. We  do not find any valid reason to hold the meeting not  to be of Aghadi or front.

It was  next submitted that any copy of rules & regulations of  the  municipal  party or Aghadi or front have  not  been placed  on record nor filed with the Collector alongwith the statement  in Form I and therefore the working of the  Nagar Vikas  Aghadi and the person authorised to issue whip cannot be  spelled  out.  This contention has also to be  rejected. The  filing  of  the  rules &  regulations  contemplated  by clauses (b) & (c) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 is for the purpose of  registration  of a municipal party with  the  Collector. For  the  purpose of these appeals, we do not propose to  go into  the question as to what would be the effect of absence of  rules  & regulations on the formation of the  Aghadi  or front  or  the effect on the registration of  non-filing  of such  rules & regulation, if there be one, for two  reasons. Firstly,  the  registration of municipal party  is  complete consequent upon the entries having been made in the register Form  IV  and  also having been notified in  the  Government Gazette.    Nobody   has  raised   any  objection   to   the registration  of the municipal party or validity thereof and sought  for its cancellation.  Secondly, for the purpose  of the  controversy  arising for decision in these appeals,  we could  have  spelled  out from the rules &  regulations,  if available,  who  was the person or authority  authorised  in this  behalf for the purpose of issuing a whip under Section 3(1)(b)  of  the  Act.   In  the   case  at  hand,  such  an authorisation  was  given  in the resolution passed  at  the meeting  dated 18.10.1997.  It is nobodys case that such an authorisation  was  at  any   time  questioned  or  revoked. Section  3(1)(b)  does  not provide for when  and  how  such authorisation  shall  be  given;   all  that  the  provision contemplates  is that there must be any person or  authority authorised  in this behalf by the political party or  Aghadi or  front to which the Councillor belongs.  The language  of the  resolution  clearly  spells out  compliance  with  this requirement.  Dr.  Erram, the President of the Aghadi and in his  absence Shri Pawaskar, a Councillor, were  specifically authorised to issue a whip.  The whips on the basis of which the  disqualification is sought to be spelled out are signed by  Dr.  Erram or by Dr.  Erram and Shri Pawaskar both.  The whips  issued satisfy the requirement of Section 3(1)(b)  in view of the specific authorisation given in this behalf.

   Lastly,  it was submitted by Shri Mohta that Dr.   Erram was  the  President of the parent body but not a  Councillor and  hence not a member of the municipal party and therefore he  could not have been authorised to issue a whip.  Section 3(1)(b) requires any person or authority to be authorised in this  behalf by the political party or Aghadi or front.   No provision either in the Act or in the Rules has been brought to our notice in support of the submission made spelling out that  the  person or authority authorised to issue the  whip must be a Councillor or a member of a municipal party.

   For  the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the  legality of the whip having been issued.  The whip  did not suffer with any such deficiency as would enable the whip being  defied  successfully and yet avoiding consequence  of disqualification.

   For  the  foregoing  reasons, all the appeals  are  held liable  to  be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly.   No

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

order as to the costs.