Z.A. HAQ, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue, which falls for consideration in this petition is, “Whether the Resolution No.1 passed in the Special General Meeting of Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on 29.04.2013, nominating the eight members on the Standing Committee is proper and valid as per the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act”. However, a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition is raised by respondent no.1 The Mayor of the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on the ground that the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola Municipal Corporation is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Disqualification Rules, 1987’) and, therefore, this issue also falls for our consideration.

3. We will first deal with the preliminary objection as raised on behalf of respondent no.1The Mayor about the maintainability of the writ petition. Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, has submitted that the writ petition need not be entertained by this Court for two reasons viz. i) The petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act; and ii) The petitioner no.1 is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated by the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987; and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable at its behest and the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are claiming their right through the petitioner no.1 and as the petitioner no.1 itself does not have any existence, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 cannot claim any right through the petitioner no.1 and, therefore, the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 is also not maintainable.

4. As far as the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is concerned, no submissions are made at the time of arguments and, therefore, we are not dealing with the issue.

5. The focus of Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, during arguments was on the point that the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated under the Disqualification Rules of 1987 and, therefore, it cannot maintain the writ petition. Shri Ghare submitted that the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner on 05.03.2012 and the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti is rejected by the Divisional Commissioner by the order dated 28.08.2012. It is the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor that the “Aghadi” or the “Front” as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 can be said to be in existence if it is registered by the Divisional Commissioner and in the present case, the Divisional Commissioner having rejected the proposal submitted by one Shri Harish Ratanlal Alimchandani to register the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is not in existence and, therefore, it cannot file and maintain the writ petition. Shri Ghare has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012, which was filed by the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, it is already adjudicated that the registration of the “Aghadi” is a sine qua non for its existence and as the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti by the order dated 28.08.2012, now it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti exists and it