A.M. DHAVALE, J.

1. The petitioner, a Municipal Councillor at Parola and elected from the Shivsena party, assails the communication of the Collector, Jalgaon (R2) dt. 15.12.2017 declaring Deepak Anushtan (R4) as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the party and claims incidental benefits.

2. In the month of November2016, Municipal Council Election of Parola, Dist. Jalgaon was held in which 5 candidates of Shivsena party including the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were elected. On 27.11.2016, all the five candidates elected the petitioner as their party leader and submitted representation with copy of resolution and copy of rules. The rule provided a right to the party leader to issue whip which would bind on all the members. It was also declared that, the party leader shall continue to be the leader or Gatneta till the next general election. The Collector, Jalgaon accepted the representation and declared the petitioner as Gatneta of Shivsena Municipal Party.

3. Some of the members felt aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner and on 12.12.2017, a notice was issued by respondent No. 4 to convene a meeting for taking decision on urgent matter. On 12.12.2017, the meeting was held which was attended by respondent No. 4 and two other members. The petitioner and one member remained absent. The three members unanimously resolved to change Gatneta and selected respondent No. 4 – Deepak Anushtan as Gatneta. This decision was communicated to the Collector and the Collector by impugned communication dt. 15.12.2017 recorded that respondent No. 4 had become Gatneta of Shivsena Municipal Party. Hence, this petition.

4. Shri. V. D. Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the impugned communication on following grounds.

(i) Respondent No. 4 had no authority to call a meeting.

(ii) The notices of the meeting were not served properly.

(iii) The petitioner and two others were communicated that the meeting would be held on 13.12.2017 at 10:00 a.m. whereas; the meeting was held on 12.12.2017 and, therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing.

(iv) The rules framed and communicated by the Municipal Party to the Collector made no provision for making changes in the Gatneta.

(v) The rules in fact provided that the petitioner would continue to be the Gatneta till the next general election. Therefore, the meeting held on 12.12.2017 is illegal. The decision taken therein is not legal and the decision was without jurisdiction. Therefore, the communication impugned is bad in law. He relied on following rulings.

(i) Sadashiv H. Patil Vs. Vithal D. Teke & Ors reported in 2000 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 829.

(ii) Sunil Haribhau Kale Vs Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 403.

(iii) Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi Vs Sharad Namdeo Pawar & Ors. reported in 2013 (6) Bom. C. R. 806.

5. Shri. P. S. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent/State, relied on the judgment in Sangram Arun Jagtap & Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors (Writ Petition No. 7956 of 2016) decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th September, 2017.

6. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Shrikant @ Balasaheb M. Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 2 Mh.L.J. 794, wherein it is observed that, the definition of the term 'Leader' very clearly shows that, where a Municipal Party has formed an Aghadi, he is to be chosen by the Aghadi or front. Necessarily any change in the leader of Municipal Party is to be effected by the Aghadi and not by any outsider. Once aghadi rule is formed and same is recognized by Divisional Commissioner, it becomes Municipal Party. Rules do not provide for nomination of group leader even if the nomination is by Secretary of largest party holding maximum seats in the Aghadi.

7. Learned advocate for the respondents submit that the members of Municipal Party held a meeting and majority of them passed a resolution to change the Gatneta. The same has been rightly accepted by the Co