1. By these Petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the judgment delivered by the respondent no.1-Collector in Proceedings No. 1989 on 31st January, 2011, declaring them disqualified under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (Hereinafter referred to as "1986 Act). Writ Petition no. 1125 of 2011 is filed by another councilor challenging that order of disqualifying him. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioners before this Court in both the matters are elected Councilors of Ambad Municipal Council, a body constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as "1965 Act"). The respondent nos. 2 and 3 in both Petitions are also the Councilors elected along with them. It is not in dispute that all these persons have been elected as Councilors as candidates belonging to political party namely Nationalist Congress party (N.C.P.) in the year 2006. President of Municipal Council, Ambad was then elected for a period of two and half years. After that election and expiry of period, the election for subsequent President was held on 20th June, 2009. In that election, Mrs. Sulbha Kulkarni and the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 1125/2011 came to be elected as President and Vice President respectively. After that election, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Petition under Section 6 of the 1986 Act alleging disobedience by all petitioners to the whip issued by the N.C.P. and contended that they voted in that election contrary to it. The petitioners appeared in those proceedings, filed their replies and after oral evidence & hearing arguments, the respondent no.1 had passed order of disqualification, which came to be questioned in Writ Petition No. 8272 of 2010. Vide Judgment dated 29.10.2010, this Court remanded matter back for passing reasoned order after considering various binding precedents in the field. After remand, the respondent no.1 heard the parties on 14.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 and the matter came to be reserved for orders. The impugned order is then passed on 31st January, 2011. There is dispute between the parties about the said date but it is not very material for narration of facts at this stage. The petitioners are again disqualified by the said order.

2. This Court issued notices on 17th February, 2011 and in that order also observed that if otherwise convenient to Court, the Court may dispose of the Petitions finally at the stage of admission. Prior to that respective Counsel were heard on 15.02.1011 and because of urgency pointed out, this Court permitted election to fill in vacancy in post of Vice President to go on but then directed that result thereof shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Those interim orders are then continued & operate even today.

3. I have heard Advocate Mr. S.B. Deshpande with Advocate Joshi for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2011, Mr. M.S. Deshmukh for petitioner in Writ Petition no. 1125 of 2011, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Advocate Mr. Salunke for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition no. 1124 of 2011 and Advocate Mr. P.R. Patil for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition no. 1125 of 2011, Mr. S.S. Patunkar, Adv. has appeared for respondent no.4 Municipal Council in both the matters. In addition to oral arguments, all the Counsel have also placed on record the brief notes of arguments in writing.

4. Advocate Mr. Deshpande has contended that most important question involved in the matter was about the formation & existence of the Municipal party i.e. Ambad Municipal party and the person elected by that municipal party as its group leader (Gat Neta). He has urged that in present facts one Shri. Ankushrao Tope has claimed himself to be the District President of N.C.P. He has further alleged that he has nominated/appointed respondent no.2- Shri. Suresh Gude as group