B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Looking to the nature of controversy and as interim order has been granted by this Court, we have accepted the request of the parties to decide the matter finally at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Gordey, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Raskar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No. 2, Shri Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent No. 3, Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Shri Dhore, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6, by making rule returnable forthwith.

2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to resolution dated 20.03.2012 passed in General Body Meeting of Akola Municipal Corporation, insofar as the determination of respective strength of the members representing the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 on Standing Committee & consequential nominations thereto is concerned. According to the petitioner, it is entitled to six members & Respondent No. 4 should have been given seven members on Standing Committee which consists of total 16 members. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have given eight representatives to Respondent No. 4 and five representatives to the present petitioner. The basic facts are not much in dispute.

3. In General elections of respondent No. 1 Corporation held on 16.02.2012, total 73 Corporators have been elected. The petitioner – Samiti claims that it has total membership of 26 in the House. Respondent No. 4 is having only 33 members while Shiv Sena has eight Corporators, Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi has five Corporators and there is one independent. According to the respondents, the petitioner has got 24 Corporators while Respondent No. 4 has got 35 Corporators. There is no dispute about number of Corporators with other three parties / groups above. The petitioner claims that Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 Corporators are from their Samiti while Respondent No. 4 has urged that they belong to their Aghadi. In meeting conducted on 20.03.2012, Respondents No. 1 & 2 have treated Respondents No. 5 & 6 as members of Respondent No. 4 – Aghadi. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 also disclosed in the meeting that they have opted to join Respondent No. 4 – Aghadi.

4. In this background, Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that on 03.03.2012, information as required by Rule 3 of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Disqualification Rules) has been furnished by the petitioner to Respondent No. 3 Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. In that they have disclosed 23 Corporators as belonging to the petitioner–Samiti. These 23 consists of 18 Corporators elected on BJP symbol, one elected on Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena (MNS) symbol and four independents. These four independents included Respondents No. 5 & 6 also. On 04.03.2012, this information was forwarded by the Municipal Commissioner of Respondent No. 1 – Corporation to the Divisional Commissioner. On 13.03.2012, the petitioner submitted a further change pointing out that three Corporators have again joined them and thus their strength increased to 26. Respondent No. 4 had submitted similar application on 9th March and pointed out its strength to be 33 Corporators. On 16.03.2012, Respondent No. 4 informed Respondent No. 3 – Divisional Commissioner that Respondents No. 5 & 6 have joined their Aghadi. On 17.03.2012, the petitioner filed its objection to this change before the Divisional Commissioner.

5. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Advocate contends that thus, Respondents No. 1 & 2 ought to have computed total strength of Respondent No. 4 to be 33 and should have allotted them representation of seven members on Standing Committee. The strength of the petitioner should have been computed at 26 and it should have been awarded six members. He contends that act of respond