JUDGMENT - DAGA V.C., J.:-Rule, returnable forthwith.

Heard by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging the decision of respondent No. 2, dated 22nd August, 2003 recognising the respondent No. 3 as the Leader of Opposition in the Municipal Corporation of Akola, the respondent No. 1 (the Corporation for short).

FACTUAL SCENARIO :

3. The factual scenario depicts that the respondent No. 2 is holding office of Mayor of the respondent No. 1, the Corporation, established under section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).

4. The general election of the respondent No. 1 Corporation was held sometime in the month of February 2002. The petitioner contested as authorised candidate of Congress (I) and got duly elected as Municipal Corporator from Ward No. 22-C. The respondent No. 2 has recognised respondent No. 3 as a Leader of Opposition. This decision is the subject matter of challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The party scenario of various other political parties or fronts or aghadi in respondent No. 2 Corporation is catalogued hereinbelow :

Congress (I) ........................... 9 Corporators.

Nagar Vikas Front ................. 7 "

Bharip Bahujan Mahasangh.. 6 "

Muslim League...................... 5 "

Navnirman Manch................ 4 "

Rashtrawadi Congress.......... 3 "

6. B.J.P. and Shiv Sena co-aliation which took place prior to election, could muster highest numerical strength and became a Ruling Party. The Indian National Congress (Congress (I)) having greatest numerical strength became the largest opposition party in the Corporation entitled to stake claim for the office of Leader of the Opposition. Indian National Party informed the respondent No. 2 that they have chosen the petitioner as their party Leader, who could be recognised as Leader of Opposition in the Corporation. Accordingly petitioner came to be recognised as Leader of Opposition in the respondent No. 1 Corporation.

7. On or about 31st July, 2003, petitioner suffered a blow from his party colleagues Corporator. Five of them, who were elected as authorised candidates of Indian National Congress Party, by their joint letter dated 31-7-2003, informed the respondent No. 2, Mayoress of the Corporation that they have formed a separate group and elected one Shri Ab Latif Din Mohd. Khatri, respondent No. 3 herein, as their group leader and that he be designated and recognised as Leader of Opposition since the Indian National Congress has ceased to be a party having greatest numerical strength.

8. The respondent No. 2 after having satisfied with the contents of the letter dated 31st July, 2003 and taking into account the split in the Indian National Congress; firstly called upon Dr. Kishor Malokar, Leader of Nagar Vikas Front to submit his consent or the name of any other Councillor from his party for being recognised as a Leader of Opposition, it being a party having greatest numerical strength after Congress (I) in the Corporation. However, Mr. Malokar by his letter dated 19th August, 2003 informed respondent No. 2 that nobody from his party is interested and willing to hold office of the Leader of Opposition in the Corporation.

9. Since, the Leader of Nagar Vikas Front having next greatest numerical strength refused to shoulder the responsibility as a Leader of Opposition, the respondent No. 2 called upon Mr. Sunil Mishra, Leader of Bharip Bahujan Mahasangh having six elected councillors to submit his consent or name of any other councillor from his party for being recognised as Leader of Opposition in the Corporation. Mr. Sunil Mishra, by his letter dated 19th August, 2003 informed respondent No. 2 his inability and that nobody from his party is willing to act as Leader of Opposition. However, he communicated his partys support to respondent No. 3 Mr. Ab. Latif Din Mohammad Khatri, Municipal Corporator.

10. The respondent No. 2, thereafter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document