LOKASHAHI AGHADI Vs. AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks relief to quash and set aside the impugned communication issued by respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati dated 7.4.2017 treating respondent no.6 as member of respondent no.5-Shiv Sena Paksh and consequently holding that strength of respondent no.5 party is only of eight members.

(3.) The general elections to the Municipal Corporation, Akola were held. The results were declared on 23.3.2017 wherein 49 candidates belonging to Bhartiya Janta Party, 33 from Indian National Congress, 5 from Rastravadi Congress, 8 from Shiv Sena, 3 from Bhartiya Republic Party, one from MIM, one independent i.e. respondent no.6 were elected. The five Corporators of Rashtravadi party were members from Bhartiya Republic party and one from MIM formed a Lokshai Aghadi, Akola. The petitioner as well as respondent no.5 Shiv Sena submitted the information as per Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 to respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The information furnished on behalf of respondent no.5 showed the name of eight members/Corporators elected from respondent no.5 party. Later-on on 24.3.2017 respondent no.5 submitted another information to respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner regarding the formation of Shiv Sena Aghadi Akola Mahanagar Palika which included eight Corporators elected from Shiv Sena and one independent Corporator i.e. respondent no.6. Respondent no.5 requested to respondent no.3 to register the aghadi as per the provisions under section 5 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member Disqualification Act. The petitioner has challenged the said action on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 terming as illegal and bad in law. According to the petitioner, a person elected as an independent candidate cannot join party. If such independent council joins a party, then he incurs the disqualification as per the provisions under section 5 of the Act. It is stated that such type of merger of independent candidate with political party is impermissible in the eye of law and, therefore, respondent no.6 incurs disqualification. It is stated that respondent no.6 has not submitted an information as per Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Member Disqualification Rules. The petitioner raised objection before respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner. Respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector, Akola to verify the information submitted on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 as well as the petitioner. The respondent no.4-Collector, Akola did not consider the objection raised by the petitioner. Respondent no.4 submitted its report to respondent no.3 stating therein that the objection raised by petitioner is not sustainable. In these circumstances, petitioner challenged the action on the part of respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, including the name of respondent no.6 in respondent no.5 party stating that it is illegal and bad in law.