IMPORTANT POINTS
Elected members can form an aghadi as post-poll alliance for securing proportional representation to the various standing committees.
When order of the Commissioner rejecting registration of Aghadi which attained finality, it could not be ignored by High Court to take a different view.

JUDGMENT

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 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 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 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 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