The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the rules for the formation of a political party and the lack of infraction of procedural requirements in disqualification proceedings.

1] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge an order dated 2nd June 2011 of the Collector, Pune by which it has been declared that each of the petitioner stands disqualified as Member of Panchayat Samiti, Indapur under section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority (Members Disqualification) Act, 1986 (the Act for short) and the Maharashtra Local Authority (Members Disqualification) Rules, 1987 (for short Rules).

2] Respondent No.1 to this petition is also a Councillor of the Panchayat Samati. The Panchayat Samiti is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti's Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioners that they are elected as Councilors of respondent No.2 on 23rd February 2007. Respondent No.1 claims that meeting of the party took place on 12th March 2007 at which he was elected as party leader and was authorised to prepare and issue whip. It is the case of first respondent that the party was formed on 12th March 2007. The election to the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman to respondent No.2 Panchayat was declared on 19th November 2009. The election was to be held on 27th November 2009. Petitioner No.1 filed his nomination for the post of Chairman. The respondent No.1 was also desirous of contesting election and, therefore, he also filed his nomination. In the election held on 27th November 2009, the petitioner No.1 was elected as Chairman by majority of 8 : 6 votes. One Kantilal Borade was elected as Vice Chairman by similar margin of votes. It is the case of the first respondent that he had issued a whip under the authority derived by him and, therefore, petitioners were obliged to vote for him. Having not voted and abided by the whip issued by the party, the petitioners have incurred disqualification under the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, filed a petition being Reference Petition No.52 of 2009 to disqualify the petitioners.

3] In terms of the statutory provisions, the Authority to whom such a petition can be made and who can decide it, is Collector of the district. Accordingly, the petition was filed before the Collector and it was urged that the petitioners and respondent No.1 belong to same political party i.e. Indian National Congress. They are members of the Indian National Congress, Indapur Panchayat Samati Party (for short P.S.Party).

4] As far as registration of the P.S.Party is concerned, it was contended that the requisite information as required by Rule 3 of the Rules was submitted to the Block Development Officer (BDO) on 14th March 2007 and the BDO forwarded the same and the Deputy Collector, Pune received it on 15th March 2007. Thus, the P.S.Party was registered with Collector.

5] When the petition was served, the petitioners filed their written statement opposing the reliefs prayed. The written statement proceeded to state that the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not applicable as the elections to the P.S. Were held on March 2007. It was alleged that the P.S. Party did not come into existence and in any event is non existent. It is stated that one Dhananjay Babras friend of petitioners had sought information under RTI vide letter dated 23rd November 2009. After receipt of this letter information was sought from BDO whether any party is formed at P.S. Level. The BDO informed Dy.Collector as per his record no new party is formed. Thus, Mr.Babras was informed that as per the records the proposal under section 3(1) of the Act is not received in the office. Thus, the PS Party was not in existencce. If the party itself is non existent, then, there is no question of the petitioners being disqualified. Reliance upon the information that was provided, that this stand was taken by the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners neither joined any political party nor elected any leader of their party in the absence of which whip cannot be issued for the purpose of the Act a