1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1192 OF 2012

(Arising out of Special Lave Petition (Civil) No.14988 of 2011)

Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan & Ors.

….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

CHELAMESWAR, J.

Leave granted.

2.

The interpretation and purport of the second proviso to Sub-section(2) of Section

31(A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter

referred to as “Municipal Corporation Act”) falls for the consideration of this Court.

2

3.

The constitution of the “Municipal Corporations”¹ (in the State of Maharashtra),

their powers, functions and various allied matters are regulated by the above-

mentioned Act. Section 5(2)² of the Act declares, every “Corporation” shall consist of a

definite number of elected and a few nominated councillors. The number of elected

Councillors with respect to any Corporation is determined on the basis of the

population of that Municipal Corporation. The case on hand pertains to the Ulhasnagar

Municipal Corporation, the third respondent herein, which has a total of 76 elected

Councillors.

4.

Election to the third respondent took place sometime in the month of February,

2007 and the Corporation was duly constituted with 76 elected Councillors. The break-

up of the 76 Councillors is specified in the Judgment under appeal as follows:-

“(1) Lok Bharti Party

14

(2) Nationalist Congress Party

15

(3) Shiv Sena Party

16

(4) Bhartiya Janata Party

12

(5) Indian National Congress

6

(6) Republican Party of India (A)

5

(7) Maharashta Navnirman Sena

2

(8) Independents

5

(9) Republic Party of India (G)

1

1 Sec.2(10) – “Corporation” means the Municipal Corporation constituted or deemed to have been constituted for a larger

urban area known as a City.

Sec. 2(8) – “City” means the larger urban area specified in a notification issued in respect thereof under clause (2)

of article 243-Q of the Constitution of India or under sub-section(2) of section 3 of the Act, forming a City.

22 Sec.5(2) Each Corporation shall consist of,-

(a) such number of councilors, elected directly at ward elections, as is specified in the table below-

T A B L E

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

(b) such number of nominated councilors not exceeding five, having special knowledge or experience in

Municipal Administration to be nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed.

3

5.

Apart from the fourteen Members elected as Councillors to the Ulhasnagar

Municipal Corporation on behalf of the Lok Bharti Party, two more Councillors, one

independent and the other a lone Councillor, belonging to the Republican Party of India

(G), joined hands with the Councillors of the Lok Bharti Party and formed a

front/aghadi immediately after the election availing the facility provided under the 2^nd

proviso to Section 31A(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act.

6.

Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 herein were admittedly members of the said Aghadi.

However, they decided to quit the Aghadi and form a ‘Swatantar Aghadi’ and

addressed a letter dated 23^rd February, 2011 to the first respondent herein requesting

the first respondent to make suitable changes in the records maintained under the

Disqualification Act and the rules made thereunder.

7.

The first respondent accepted the above-mentioned request. The same is

evidenced by his communication dated 11^th March, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

impugned order’).

8.

Challenging the above-mentioned communication, two of the Councillors

belonging to the Lok Bharti Party approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ

petition (civil) No. 2237 of 2011. By the judgment under appeal, the said writ petition

was dismissed.

4

9.

The substance of the objection to the legality of the impugned order is that in the

light of the language of the second provis