The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disobedience of a whip issued by a political party, communicated to the members, can lead to their disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986.

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and they are in respect of the decision given by Collector, Parbhani in case No. 1/12 (2012/A/MUN- 1/Petition-1). The petition filed by the present petitioner before Collector for disqualification of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 7 from membership of councillors is dismissed by holding that the whip issued by the political party of the petitioner on these respondents was not served on them. However, finding is given that the whip was issued by competent person of the political party. In view of this decision and the findings, both the sides have filed aforesaid petitions to challenge the decision and the findings.

3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the petitions can be stated as follows :-

The petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are members of political party, Congress I, a national party. In General Election to Municipal Council Sonpeth, these persons had contested elections for the posts of councillors from different wards on the tickets of Congress I party. Congress I party had sponsored candidates for all the 17 wards. It is the case of petitioner that after the General Elections, after consulting the State Level Committee of the political party, she was asked to contest the election to the post of Vice President and respondent No. 2 was asked to contest the election to the post of President. Nationalist Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as 'N.C.P.' for short) was rival party in that election and its eight members were elected as councillors in the said election. In the elections, petitioner and respondent No. 2 defeated the candidates of N.C.P. and they were elected on the respective posts on 21.12.2011.

4. On 29.6.2012, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 signed on requisition given by councillors of N.C.P. for calling special meeting as they wanted to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. It is the case of petitioner that when she learned about such move, she informed about the activities of respondents to District President Shri. Suresh Deshmukh. It is her case that Shri. Deshmukh contacted General Secretary of the State Unit of the party and informed about the requisition given. It is the case of petitioner that high command, State Committee directly contacted respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and respondents were warned not to support no confidence motion which was to be moved against the petitioner in the meeting. It is the case of petitioner that by letter dated 3.7.2012 Shri. Ganesh Patil, General Secretary of State Unit, high command gave authorisation to District President Suresh Deshmukh to issue whip and prevent the members of Congress I party from voting against the petitioner.

5. It is the case of petitioner that Suresh Deshmukh, the District President then issued whip to petitioner and all aforesaid respondents to inform about the instructions given by the high command, not to vote against petitioner in no confidence motion. It is the case of petitioner that to each of the councillor of the Congress I party including respondent Nos. 1 to 7, such intimation was given, but the approach of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was to avoid contact and avoid to receive the communication of the whip. It is the case of petitioner that in view of this approach, the District President published the whip in daily newspapers like Lokmat and Sakal on 5.7.2012 and 6.7.2012.

6. It is the case of petitioner that inside of the house also where the meeting was scheduled on 7.7.2012, before starting of the meeting, the petitioner had contacted these respondents and had informed them about the whip issued by the party and she had shown the whip to all of them. It is her case that the consequences of voting against whip were also informed to the respondents and their attention was brought to the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members'