D. D. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned A. G. P. , for respondent No. 1, Mr. Ghare, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, Mr. Borkar learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Madkholkar learned counsel for intervenor.

( 3 ) THE facts which are relevant for adjudication are as under :- the petitioner has been recognized by respondent No. 3 as Leader of opposition of Akola Municipal Corporation in the year 2003. This decision was challenged by Vishnu Shivram Mehere by filing Writ Petition No. 3418 of 2003 in this Court. This Court decided the said writ petition vide judgment dated 8-12-2003 reported in 2003 (5) Mh. L. J. 522 = 2004 (3) All MR 151. The issues involved in the said writ petition are reflected in para 30 of the judgment which reads thus -" (A) Whether under section 19-1aa, the Mayor has a power to recognise an elected councillor, who is, for the time being Leader of the Party in opposition having next highest numerical strength in the event of refusal by an elected councillor who is for the time being the Leader of the Party in opposition, having greatest numerical strength? (B) Whether from the time of split in the INC/congress (I) such faction or break-away group [consisting of five elected councillors] can be deemed to be the political party to which they belong for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 3 and to be their original political party as contemplated in the section 4 (i) (h) (b) of the Members Disqualification Act?"

( 4 ) IN the instant case, we are not much concerned about issue (A), however so far as issue (B) is concerned, the Division Bench has observed thus :"the next issue revolves around the interpretation of section 4 (1) (B) (b) of the Members Disqualification Act. It lays down in case of split, the ground of disqualification mentioned in section 3 of the said Act shall not apply; if the councillor, or as the case may be, a member makes claim that he and any other member of the municipal party constitutes group representing a faction which has arisen as a result of split in his original party or aghadi or front and where the total strength of the councillors or, as the case may be, members (a) does not exceed 20 and such group consists of one-half or; (b) exceed 20 and such group consists of one- third of the councillors of such municipal party, then such councillor or councillors or member or members shall not be disqualified under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Members disqualification Act. Clause (B) (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4 further prescribes that from the time of such split such faction shall be deemed to be a political party or aghadi or front to which it belongs for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section (3) and such faction shall be treated as his original political party or aghadi or front for the purposes of section 4. In other words, if the break-away group representing a faction answering qualifications laid down in section 4 (1) (B) which has arisen due to split in the original party then under section 4 (1) (B) (b) such faction or the group shall be deemed to be a political party or aghadi or front and shall be recognized as original political party for the purposes of section 3 (1) of the Members Disqualification Act. This deeming fiction created by section 4 (1) (B) (b) will have to be assigned its logical meaning. Any other interpretation will defeat the very purpose and philosophy of the legislation, namely. Members Disqualification Act. In this view of the matter, the contention advanced by Mr. Lohiya that five members of Indian National Congress, who have formed separate group, are still deemed to be the members of the Indian National Congress for all purposes of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act is devoid of an