ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Collector on 14/10/2008, whereby he registered Aghadi of respondent no.3 in which he included the names of respondents no.4 and 5.

3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows The elections of Wardha Municipal council were held on 19/11/2006. The result of the said elections were declared on 27/11/2006. The petitioner applied under Section 63(2B) for registration of Aghadi which is known as Sonia Wardha Shahar Vikas Aghadi,. He submitted an application to the Collector under his signature and with resolution passed by the eleven members in his Aghadi, to form a Aghadi. After the said application was filed on 26/12/2006, the Collector passed an order thereon on 13/12/2007 registering the said Aghadi. The said Aghadi was also notified in the official gazette dated 15th December, 2007. Respondent no.1 had also applied for registration of his Aghadi under the name and style Wardha Shahar Vikas Munch. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Respondent no.3, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to redecide the application of respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 had applied for registration of Aghadi which included the names of respondents no.4 and 5. The Collector held an enquiy and found that respondents no. 4 and 5 have given their consent for being included in the Aghadi of respondent no.3. Therefore, he passed an order registering respondent no.3’s Aghadi which includes names of respondent nos.4 and 5. The petitioner’s contention is that since the names of respondents no.4 and 5 have already been included in the Aghadi of the petitioner, they could not have been included in the respondent’s Aghadi. The petitioner on account of this reason, feels aggrieved and prefers this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

5. A few admitted facts, however, be noted first;

The petitioner applied for registration of their Aghadi and Collector passed an order registering the Aghadi on 13/12/2007. The said Aghadi was thereafter notified in the official gazette of the State on 15/12/2007 (Annexure E). Respondent no.3 also had applied for registration of his Aghadi but application was rejected as barred by limitation. In the writ petition, the High Court had directed the Collector to reconsider the application of respondent no. 3 for registration of his Aghadi. The Collector considered the application and registered the Aghadi of respondent no.3 as Wardha Shahar Vikas Munch. The petitioner’s Aghadi known as Wardha Shahar Vikas Aghadi, as notified, consists of eleven members while respondent’s Aghadi consists of ten members as can be seen from the impugned order. Further, admitted fact is that names of Maya Rudrakar – respondent no.4 and Shaikh Imran – respondent no.5 appear in both the Aghadis.

6. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection to the registration of the Aghadi of respondent no.3. The only objection the petitioner has is that it cannot contain name of respondents no.4 and 5 since they are already notified as members of the petitioner’s Aghadi. He submits that no person’s name can appear in both Aghadis. He also submits that once Aghadi is registered and names are notified, those names cannot be included in any other Aghadi and if that is so done that would amount to defection which incurs disqualification. In the context, one has to look into the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Section 63 reads as follows –

63. Constitution of Subjects Committees of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class Councils – (1) Each Subjects Committee of the Council appointed under the