IMPORTANT POINT
Recognition of Aghadi/front beyond one month of notification of the election results is not permissible.

JUDGMENT

Chelameswar, J.

Leave granted.

2. The interpretation and purport of the second proviso to Sub-section(2) of Section 31(A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Municipal Corporation Act”) falls for the consideration of this Court.

3. The constitution of the “Municipal Corporations”1 (in the State of Maharashtra), their powers, functions and various allied matters are regulated by the above-mentioned Act. Section 5(2)2 of the Act declares, every “Corporation” shall consist of a definite number of elected and a few nominated councillors. The number of elected Councillors with respect to any Corporation is determined on the basis of the population of that Municipal Corporation. The case on hand pertains to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, the third respondent herein, which has a total of 76 elected Councillors.

4. Election to the third respondent took place sometime in the month of February, 2007 and the Corporation was duly constituted with 76 elected Councillors. The break-up of the 76 Councillors is specified in the Judgment under appeal as follows:-

“(1) Lok Bharti Party 14

(2) Nationalist Congress Party 15

(3) Shiv Sena Party 16

(4) Bhartiya Janata Party 12

(5) Indian National Congress 6

(6) Republican Party of India (A) 5

(7) Maharashta Navnirman Sena 2

(8) Independents 5

(9) Republican Party of India (G) 1

1 Sec.2(10) - “Corporation” means the Municipal Corporation constituted or deemed to have been constituted for a larger urban area known as a City.

Sec. 2(8) - “City” means the larger urban area specified in a notification issued in respect thereof under clause (2) of article 243-Q of the Constitution of India or under sub-section(2) of section 3 of the Act, forming a City.

22 Sec.5(2) Each Corporation shall consist of,-

(a) such number of councilors, elected directly at ward elections, as is specified in the table below-

TABLE

XXX XXX XXX XXX

(b) such number of nominated councilors not exceeding five, having special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed.

5. Apart from the fourteen Members elected as Councillors to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation on behalf of the Lok Bharti Party, two more Councillors, one independent and the other a lone Councillor, belonging to the Republican Party of India (G), joined hands with the Councillors of the Lok Bharti Party and formed a front/aghadi immediately after the election availing the facility provided under the 2 nd proviso to Section 31A(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act.

6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 herein were admittedly members of the said Aghadi. However, they decided to quit the Aghadi and form a ‘Swatantar Aghadi’ and addressed a letter dated 23rd February, 2011 to the first respondent herein requesting the first respondent to make suitable changes in the records maintained under the Disqualification Act and the rules made thereunder.

7. The first respondent accepted the above-mentioned request. The same is evidenced by his communication dated 11th March, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’).

8. Challenging the above-mentioned communication, two of the Councillors belonging to the Lok Bharti Party approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition (civil) No. 2237 of 2011. By the judgment under appeal, the said writ petition was dismissed.

9. The substance of the objection to the legality of the impugned order is that in the light of the language of the second proviso to Section 31A(2), formation of a front or aghadi after the completion of the election process to the municipal body is permissible only when that is done within one month from the date of the notification of the results of the election. The impugned communication purports to recognise an aghadi/front beyond the above-mentioned period of one month which is clearly impermissible and hence illegal.

10. The High Court rejected the above-mentioned submi