Case: Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani &amp; Another Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan &amp; Others

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.  3. The constitution of the Municipal Corporations1 (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:-is specified in theby the Corporation in5. 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 2nd 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 23rd 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 11th 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.  9. The substance of the objection to the legality of the impugned order is that in the light of the language of the second proviso to Section 31A(2), formation of a front or aghadi after the completion of the election process to the municipal body is permissible only when that is done within one month from the date of the notification of the results of the election. The impugned communication purports to recognise an aghadi/front beyond the above-mentioned period of one month which is clearly impermissible and hence illegal.  10. The High Court rejected the above-mentioned submission. On an examination of the various provisions of the Act, the Court rightly held that the appointment to the four categories of Committees specified under Sections 31A(1) takes place at least more than once during the tenure of the Corporation. Therefore the High Court opined the relative strength of the recognised parties or registered parties or groups at the time of appointments whenever made would be relevant. Hence, found no reason to find fault with the impugned order. The correctness of the said judgment is in issue before us.

Court's reasoning:
of the relative strength of aghadis would have various legal consequences provided under the Disqualification Act. Depending upon the fact situation in a given case, the variation might result in the consequence of rendering some of the Councillors disqualified for continuing as Councillors. Section 31A of the Municipal Corporation Act only enables the formation of an aghadi or front within a month from the date of the notification of the results of the election to the Municipal Corporation. To permit recognition of variations in the relative strength of the political parties beyond the above mentioned period of one month would be plainly in violation of the language of the second proviso to Section 31A24. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31A enables the formation of a Aghadi or front within a period of one month from the date of notification of the election results. Such an Aghadi or front can be formed by various possible combinations of councillors belonging to either two or more registered parties or recognised parties or independent councillors. The proviso categorically stipulates that such a formation of an `Aghadi or `front is possible notwithstanding anything contained in the Disqualification Act. Because an Aghadi or front, as defined under the Disqualification Act, clearly, can only be the combination of a group of persons forming themselves into a party prior to the election for setting up candidates at an election to a local authority but not a combination of political parties or political parties and individuals25. Therefore, second proviso to Section 31A (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act which is a later expression of the will of the sovereign, in contrast to the stipulation as contained under Section 2(a) and 3(2) of the Disqualification Act, would enable the formation of post electoral aghadis or fronts. However, such a formation is only meant for a limited purpose of enabling such aghadis to secure better representation in the various categories of the Committees specified under Section 31A. The component parties or individual independent Councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a given front/aghadi do not lose their political identify and merge in to the aghadi/front or bring into existence a new political party. There is no merger such as the one contemplated under Section 5 of the Disqualification Act. It is further apparent from the language of the second proviso that on the formation of such an Aghadi or front, the same is required to be registered. The procedure for such registration is contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 198726. Once such an Aghadi is registered by a legal fiction created under the proviso, such an Aghadi is treated as if it were a pre-poll Aghadi or front. The proviso further declares that once such registration is made, the provisions of the Disqualification Act apply to the Members of such post poll Aghadi