IMPORTANT POINTS
1. 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.
2. Under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, to incur disqualification 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.

Headnote:(i) Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 -Section 3-Disqualification on ground of defection-Appellants voted against official presidential candidate-Whip not issued by authorised person-Nothing to show authorising signatories of whip to issue whip-Violation of whip would not attract applicability of Section 3(1)(b).
       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. (Para 13)
       In the instant case 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 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 person s 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. (Para 14)
       (ii) Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 -Section 3-Disqualification on ground of defection-Whip issued by unanimous resolution in meeting of Aghadi (front or party) in which all Councillors present-Whip signed by persons authorised by resolution of Aghadi earlier-Appellants defied the whip-Person authorised to issued whip need not be a Councillor or a member of a municipal party-Appellants attracted disqualification under Section 3(1)(b).
       Held : For the purpose of the controversy arising for decision in these appeals, we could have spelled out from the rules and 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 nobody s 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. (Para 19)
       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. The whip did not suffer with any such deficiency as would enable the whip being defied successfully and yet avoiding consequence of disqualification. (Paras 20 and 21)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 21085 of 1998.

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

3. 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).

4. We will refer to a few relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules insofar as are necessary for the purpose of the appeals before us. Section 2 is the interpretation 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 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 cause;

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) Wher