A.H. Joshi, J.

1. Case No. CR 49/2011 under Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986; and under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as, “the Disqualification Act and Disqualification Rules”, respectively, for the sake of brevity) was filed by present appellant before the Collector, Nanded.

2. The Collector, Nanded conducted the trial of said application, and after hearing the parties, the Collector decided said application by judgment and order dated 18th February, 2013. Thereby he declared the councilors / the respondents therein as disqualified.

3. Said judgment was challenged in two separate writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 1875 of 2012 and 1993 of 2012, by two different councilors in each petition.

Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court by judgment and order dated 7th May, 2012.

4. The appellant herein was respondent No.3 in both these writ petitions. The appellant herein has challenged the common judgment and order rendered in those writ petitions, in present appeals.

5. Heard both sides at length and perused the record annexed to the LPAs, the writ petitions and the R. & P.

6. The question involved in these appeals is as follows:-

“Whether the Councilors-the respondents (writ petitioners) had incurred disqualification as claimed by present appellant and whether the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge reversing the judgment and order of the Collector calls for any interference?”

7. Facts of the case are summarized as under :

[a] Contesting respondents are hereinafter, for brevity, referred to as, “writ petitioners”

[b] Appellant in the LPAs and the writ petitioners are councilors of the Municipal Council, Loha town, which is a Tahsil place in Nanded District.

[c] Six Councilors including appellant and writ petitioners were elected as councilors of the Municipal Council as candidates sponsored by the Indian National Congress party.

[d] The appellant claims that the communication and declaration as required under Section 3(1)(a)and (b) of the “Disqualification Act” and the declaration signed by each member under Rule 4 of the “Disqualification Rules”, were submitted before Collector, by all six elected members belonging to Indian National Congress Party.

[e] By these declarations, all these councilors have declared that the appellant was the Gat Neta of the Municipal Party, of which they are members.

[f] The fact that the appellant was declared as GAT NETA is disputed by the writ petitioners in the written statement which was filed by them before the Collector.

[g] A whip was issued and served by the District President of Indian National Congress party as well as by the appellant as a Gat Neta of Municipal party. By said Whip, it was directed that the appellant shall be the candidate for election to the post of President of the Council and further directing the councilors of the Municipal party to vote in favour of the appellant.

[h] Said whips (communications) were sent by Registered Post on the addresses of the writ petitioners which are deemed to be served on them.

[i] Respondent No.1 Kiran Narhari Wattamwar submitted his nomination for election to the post of President in violation and in disregard of Whip.

[j] All writ petitioners cast their votes against the appellant and in favour of respondent No.1 Kiran Wattamwar, in violation of the whip.

[k] The act of violation of a whip by the writ petitioners was not condoned by the original Political Party or the Municipal Party and hence, the writ petitioners had incurred disqualification.

[l] Appellant filed a petition before Collector, Nanded praying for a declaration that the writ petitioners had incurred disqualification and consequential reliefs.

[m] Before the Collector, written statement was filed by Shri Kiran Wattamwar and Smt. Shobha Bagde jointly. Similarly Shri Sharad Pawar, and Smt.