AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR.versusMAHANAGAR SUDHAR SAMITL,AKOLA& ORS.

                        [2015]2 S.C.R.100


A           AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR.
                              v.
         MAHANAGAR SUDHAR SAMITl,AKOLA& ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2015)
                     FEBRUARY 02, 2015
B
           [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
                AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

         Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949: s.31A(2)
    - Formation of group/agadi by elected members -
C   Application for registration - There arose controversy as to
    whether two of the elected members projected to be part of
    the group were actually members of the agadi (respondent
    no.1) or another group (respondent no.6) - On 28.8.2012,
    Divisional Commissioner passed order rejecting application
D   for registration - Said order not challenged - Meanwhile
    resolution dated 29.4. 2013 passed by Municipal Corporation
    nominating the appellants and respondents no. 9 to 14 in the
    Standing Committee as members - Resolution challenged
    - High Court quashed resolution dated 29. 4. 2013 - Held:
E   Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner
    was not challenged and, therefore, had attained finality-As
    such, writ petition questioning validity of resolution dated
    29.04.2013 was liable to be dismissed- Maharashtra Local
F   authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 - r.5.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The object of allowing elected members of
  the Municipal Corporation to form an aghadi as post-poll
G alliance is to give proportional representation of its
  members to the various standing committees
  constituted for functioning of the Corporations. The
  second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31A of
  Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 allows the
H                               100
 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR 101
           SUDHAR SAMIT!, AKOLA

councillors to form an aghadi after the election to a A
Municipal Corporation. An aghadi formed after election
is required to be registered as provided in sub-section
(2) of Section 31Aof1940Act. Rule 5 of Maharashtra Local
authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 relates
to maintaining a register of information as to councilors B
and members. [Paras 9, 10, 12] [105-E-G; 110-E]

     2. Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional
Commissioner whereby the application for registration
was disposed of, showed that the application of the writ     c
petitioners was rejected as affidavits of respondent no.
14 and one 'MSB' were not complete. The two, who were
elected as independent candidates, failed to file any
document to show as to which group they belonged. Their
names figured in two groups. In the said order, the          o
Divisional Commissioner also referred to a serious
infirmity in accepting the proposal, as he found that the
affidavit was sworn to and attested on 22.02.2012, whereas
the stamps were purchased on 23.02.2012 which the
Divisional Commissioner held to be an incomprehensible       E
act of the proposer. Such serious infirmities cannot be
found fault with. [Para 19] [118-C-G]

     3. Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner was not challenged, as such the same F
has attained finality. That being so, respondent no.1
cannot be said to be a registered group as required
under second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 31A
of the Act of 1949. The High Court erred in law by ignoring
the above order of the Divisional Commissioner, and G
holding that respondent no. 1 stood registered. If there
was objection to registration of an aghadi, on the ground
that names of certain members were falsely or wrongly
shown in the list, the Commissioner had no option but
to verify the same. And, in such cases, unless the H
102         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A verification is done, an aghadi cannot be said to have
  got registered, by merely submitting an application within
  one month of election to Municipal Corporation. Had the
  writ petitioners challenged order dated 28.08.2012 with
  the Resolution dated 29.04.2013, the situation would
B have been different. But order of Divisional
  Commissioner rejecting application for registration has
  attained finality, and same cannot be ignored. As such,
  writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 questioning
  validity of resolution dated 29.04.2013 was liable to be
C dismissed. [Para 20] [119-B-F]

         Jeevan Chandrabhan ldnani and Anr. vs. Divisional
      Commissioner, Konkar Bhawan and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 794:
      2012 (3) SCR 32- relied on.
D                       Case Law Reference

          2012 (3) SCR 32                relied on.    Para 7

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E     1388of2015

          [From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2013 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
      in Writ Petition No. 2571 of 2013]

F           Shekhar Naphade, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri,
      for the Appellants.

      Nikhil Nayyar, Akanksha, N. Sai Vinod, Rabin Majumdar,
  Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Suhas Kadam (For.
G Lemax Lawyers & Co.), for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. The question involved in this appeal is whether
H respondent no. 1 - Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Ako/a, an
 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR. v. MAHANAGAR 103
   SUDHAR SAMITl,AKOLA(PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

"aghadi" or "fronf' formed by some of the elected councillors     A
of respondent no. 5 -Ako/a Municipal Corporation in March,
2013, without its registration under second proviso to Section
31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
(for short "1949 Act") stood registered and recognized as a
party or group for the purposes of representation, and as such B
whether the petition filed by respondent no.1 before the High
Court challenging the Standing Committee constituted under
the 1949 Act was maintainable.
     3. Brief facts of the case are that elections were held for c
Akola Municipal Corporation in February, 2012, wherein 73
councillors were elected to the House. From amongst elected
members, in~ially 23 members, and thereafter in all 26 members
claimed to have formed an "aghadi" (group of persons) with
the name "Mahanagar Sudhar Samitl'. On 5.3.2012, within D
one month of the election, leader of the said group submitted
an application before the Divisional Commissioner for its
registration under second proviso to Section 31A(2) of the 1949
Act. It appears that in the meantime there was a controversy as
to whether two of the elected members projected to be part of E
the group were actually members of the aghadi (respondent
no.1) or another group Akola Vikas Mahaaghadi (present
respondent no.6). The said issue was decided by the High court
by a detailed judgment dated 08. 05.2012 passed in writ petition
 no. 1426 of 2012 holding that the aforesaid two members were F
 not part of either respondent no. 1 or 6. Thereafter, the Divisional
 Commissioner passed a detailed order on 28.08.2012
whereby the application for registration of respondent no.1 as
 aghadi filed in March 2012 was rejected. Said order was not
 challenged by any party. However, meanwhile Resolution dated G
 29.04.2013 was passed by the Akola Municipal Corporation
 whereby the present appellants and six others (present
 respondent nos. 9 to 14) were nominated in the Standing
 Committee as members thereof. The Resolution was
 challenged by respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing a Writ Petition H
104       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A no. 2571 of2013 beforet11e Nagpur Bench of the High Court of
  Judicature at Bombay. A preliminary objection was raised on
  behalf of Mayor (respondent no. 4) before the High Court that
  the writ petition was not maintainable. Defending the Resolution
  dated 29.04.2013, it was stated that there was no illegality in
B nominating the members whose names figured in the Standing
  Committee constituted vide Resolution dated 29.04.2013.
      4. After hearing the parties, the High Court took the view
  that since the application for registration, in the register
c maintained in Form IV as per Rule 5 of Maharashtra Local
  Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (for short "1987
  Rules"), was made within time, the respondent no.1 should have
  been treated as separate aghadi, and as such non-inclusion of
  names of its members for proportional representation in the
D Standing Committee invalidates the Resolution dated
  29.04.2013. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Resolution
  dated 29.04.2013 and allowed the writ petition.
       5. Aggrieved, by the above order dated 14.08.2013,
  passed by the High Court, in Writ Petition No. 2571 of 2013,
E this appeal is filed by the appellants who were respondent nos.
  6 and 7 before the High Court, through special leave.
       6. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellants that the High
  Court has erred in law by accepting the writ petition filed by
F respondent nos. 1 to 3 which was not maintainable. It is stated
  that the High Court ignored the fact that vide order dated
  28.08.2012, the Divisional Commissioner had rejected the
  application for registration moved by respondent No. 1 as
  separate aghadi. It is further pleaded that registration of post-
G poll group or alliance was mandatory under Section 31A of
  1949 Act read with 1987 Rules. It is argued before us that
  unregistered aghadi is not an aghadi in the eyes of law, and
  as such, neither the same could have been recognized for its
  representation in the Standing Committee nor maintain the writ
H petition in the High Court.
 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR 105
   SUDHAR SAMITl,AKOLA[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

     7. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to A
3, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court,
contended that since there was no rule or procedure prescribed
for registration as such their only duty was to intimate the
Divisional Commissioner under Rule 3 of 1987 Rules about
the formation of aghadi, and the rest was the ministerial work B
to be completed. The contesting respondent nos. 1 to 3 placed
their reliance in the case of Jeevan Chandrabhan ldnani
and Another vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkar
Bhawan and others (2012) 2 SCC 794.
                                                                  c
   8. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to
mention as to what is the meaning of word 'Aghadi', and for
what purpose it is constituted by the councillors of Corporation.
Word 'aghadi' is defined in Clause (a) of Section 2 of
Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, D
1986 (for short "1986 Act") which reads as under:

    "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-

     (a) "aghadi" or"fronf' means a group of persons who
     have formed themselves into party for the purpose of         E
     setting up candidates for election to a local authority."

      9. Object of allowing elected members to form an aghadi
as post-poll alliance is to give proportional representation of
its members to the various standing committees constituted        F
for functioning of the Corporations.

     10. Second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 A of
1949 Act allows the concillors to form an aghadi after the
election to a Municipal Corporation. Section 31A reads as
under:                                                            G

     "31A. Appointment by nomination on
     Committees to be by proportional representation
     - ( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
     or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder, in the case        H
106     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015]28.C.R.


A     of the following committees, except where it is
      provided by this Act, that the appointment of a
      Councillor to any Committee shall be by virtue of his
      holding any office, appointment of Councillors to these
      Committees, whether in regular or casual vacancies,
B     shall be made by the Corporation by nominating
      Councillors in accordance with the provisions of sub-
      section(2):-
      (a) Standing Committee;
c     (b) Transport Committee;
      (c) Any special Committee appointed under section
          30;
      (d) Any ad hoc Committee appointed under section
D
          31"
      (2) In nominating the Councillors on the Committee,
      the Corporation shall take into account the relative
      strength of the recognized parties or registered
E     parties or groups and nominate members, as nearly
      as may be, in proportion to the strength of such parties
      or groups in the Corporation, after consulting the
      Leader of the House, the Leader of Opposition and
      the leader of each such party or group:
F
      Provided that, the relative strength of the recognized
      parties or registered parties or groups or aghadi or
      front shall be calculated by first dividing the total
      number of Councillors by the total strength of members
G     of the Committee. The number of Councillors of the
      recognized parties or registered parties or groups or
      aghadi or front shall be further divided by the quotient
      of this division. The figures so arrived at shall be the
      relative strength of the respective recognized parties
H     or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front. The
 AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKE AND ANR. v. MAHANAGAR 107
   SU DHAR SAMIT!, AKO LA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

   seats shall be allotted to the recognized parties or         A
   registered parties or groups or aghadi or front by first
   considering the whole number of their respective
   relative strength so ascertained. After allotting the
   seats in this manner, if one or more seats remain to
   be allotted, the same shall be allotted one each to the      B
   recognized parties or registered parties or groups or
   aghadi or front in the descending order of the fraction
   number in the respective relative strength starting from
   the highest fraction number in the relative strength, till
   all the seats are allotted:                                  c
    Provided further that, for the purpose of deciding the
   ·relative strength of the recognized parties or
    registered parties or groups under this Act, the
    recognized parties or registered parties or groups,         D
    or elected Councillors not belonging to any such party
    or group may, notwithstanding anything contained in
    the Maharashtra Local Authority Members'
    Disqualification Act, 1986 (Mah. XX of 1987), within
    a period of one month from the date of notification of      E
    election results, from the aghadi or front and, on its
    registration, the provisions of the said Act shall apply
    to the members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a
    registered pre-poll aghadi or front.
                                                                F
   (3) If any question arises as regards the number of
   Councillors to be nominated on behalf of such party
   or group, the decision of the Corporation shall be
   final".
    11. In Jeevan Chandrabhan ldnani (supra), this Court G
has made following observations interpreting the second
proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 31 A:
    "26. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
    31-A enables the formation of an aghadi or front            H
108     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015) 2 S.C.R.



A     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
B     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,
C     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 individuals.
D
      27. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 31-A(2)
      of the Municipal Corporations Act which is a later
      expression of the will of the sovereign, in contrast to
      the stipulation as contained und~ Sections 2(a) and
E     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
F     Committees specified under Section 31-A. The
      component parties or individual independent
      Councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a
      given fronUaghadi do not lose their political identity
      and merge into the aghadi/front or bring into existence
G     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
H     be registered. The procedure for such registration is
AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR                      109
  SU DHAR SAMITI, AKOLA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

  contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority                A
  Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987.

  28. 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       8
  proviso further declares that once such a registration
  is made, the provisions of the Disqualification Act
  apply to the members of such post-poll aghadi. We
  do not propose to examine the legal consequences
  of such a declaration as it appears from the record         c
  that a complaint has already been lodged against
  Respondents 6 to 13 herein under the provisions of
  the Disqualification Act. The limited question before
  us is whether the first respondent was legally right in
  registering an aghadi or front formed after the !apse       D
   of one month from the date of the notification of the
  election results.

       xxx           xxx xxx              xxx
  30. In substance, the High Court held that the               E
  interpretation of Section 31-A depends upon the tenor
  and scheme of the subordinate legislation. Such a
  principle of statutory construction is not normally
  resorted to save in the case of interpretation of an
  old enactment where the language is ambiguous. We            F
  are conscious of the fact that there is some difference
  of opinion on this principle but for the purpose of the
  present case we do not think it necessary to examine
  the proposition in detail as in our opinion the language
  of Section 31-A is too explicit to require any other         G
  external aid for the interpretation of the same.
   Subordinate legislation made by the executive in
   exercise of the powers delegated by the legislature,
   at best, may reflect the understanding of the executive
   of the scope of the powers delegated. But there is          H
110         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A         no inherent guarantee that such an understanding is
          consistent with the true meaning and purport of the
          parent enactment.

          31. Such variations of the relative strength of aghadis
          would have various legal consequences provided
B
          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.
c         Section 31-A 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
D         political parties beyond the abovementioned period
          of one month would be plainly in violation of the
          language of the second proviso to Section 31-A."

           12. We have already discussed that an aghadi formed
E     after election is required to be registered as provided in sub-
      section (2) of Section 31Aof 1940Act. Rule 5of1987 Rules,
      which relates to maintaining a register of information as to
      councilors and members, provides as under:

          "Register of information as to councilors or members.-
F         (1) The Commissioner in the case of a councilor of a
          Municipal Corporation and the Collector, in the case
          of any other councilor or member, shall maintain in
          Form IV, a register based on the information furnished
          under rules 4 and 5 in relation to the councilor of a
G         municipal party, Zilla Parishad party or, as the case
          may be, member of a Panchayat Samiti Party."

           13. There is no detailed procedure prescribed for
      registration of an aghadi. It is evident from Rule 5 quoted
H     above, that power to register vests with the Commissioner.
  AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR                             111
    SU DHAR SAMIT!, AKOLA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

The word "Commissioner" is defined in clause (c) of Rule 2 of A
1986Act and the same is reproduced below~

    "(c) "Commissioner'' means the Commissioner of a
    revenue division appointed under Section 6 of the
    Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966".                              B

     14. In earlier round, respondent no. 1 filed writ petition no.
1426 of 2012 challenging Resolution dated 20.03.2012
passed in the General Body Meeting of Akola Municipal
Corporation which was decided by the High Court with the
following two concluding paragraphs:                                   C

    "30. This discussion leads to conclusion that
    Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 could not have been treated
    as members either of Respondent No. 4 or then of
    the petitioner. The proportionate representation of the             D
    Petitioner & Respondent No. 4 on Standing
    Committee needed to be worked out by ignoring
    them. The Petitioner therefore, is rightly given 5
    members. But then there has to be proportionate
    reduction in representation allotted to Respondent 4.               E
    Strength of Respondent No. 4 in general body of 73
    is 33. It therefore gets 7.23 seats in Standing
    Committee i.e. 7 seats. One seat remains vacant and
    decision about it cannot be taken as Respondent No.
    3 Divisional Commissioner has still not completed                   F
    his exercise of verification. First proviso to Section
    31A(2) does not prohibit Corporation from filling in
    such vacancy by nominating on the Committee any
    member not belonging to any such party or group. If
    no such member is available, Respondent Nos. 1 to                   G
    4 as also Petitioner have to start working with
    Standing Committee of 15 member's only & continue
    till the Respondent No. 3 decides on the validity of
     change or then status of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. It is
     settled position that law does not expect compliance               H
112         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A         with the impossibilities. Holding of a General Body
          Meeting for this limited purpose is essential. If
          Respondent 3 finds Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 not
          disqualified, Corporation can thereafter, proceed to
          fill in the sixteenth vacancy.
B
          31. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 Aghadi as also
          Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to bring down
          representation of Respondent No. 4 on Standing
          Committee from 8 to 7. Proceedings and meeting
c         conducted on 20.03.2012 are quashed & set-aside
          to that extent. Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 to hold a
          general body meeting to bring down the strength of
          representatives of Respondent No. 4 from 8 to 7.
          Respondent 1 Corporation is free to fill in resulting
D         vacancy by nominating on the Standing Committee a
          Councillor as per first proviso to Section 31 A(2) of
          the Corporation Act in this meeting. Said general body
          meeting be held within period of three weeks from
          today. If 16th seat in Standing Committee can not be
E         filled in, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall function with
          Standing Committee of 15 members only. Petition is
          thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in above
          terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
 F        But in that round of litigation, Divisional Commissioner
      was neither a party, nor any direction was sought against him.
        15. Shri Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel forthe respondent
   no. 1 referred to a copy of letter dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure
   R1/5) annexed with the reply on behalf of respondent no. 1
 G and contended that respondent 1 was registered. Per contra
   on behalf of appellants, Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
   counsel drew our attention to the copy of order dated 28.8.2012
   (Annexure P-5) whereby application for registration of
   Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti - respondent no. 1 as an aghadi
 H was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.
  AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR                        113
    SU DHAR SAMITI, AKOLA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

     16. Copy of communication dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure         A
R-1 /5) issued by Municipal Secretary, Akola earlier informing
that Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti as one of the registered aghadi
is re-produced below:


                   "O.N.AMNC/NS/25/12                             B
                Office of Municipal Secretary
                Akola Municipal Corporation
                     Akola Dated.6/5/13

    To Shri Sunil Meshram                                         c
    Member, MNC
    Ward no.8-A

     Subject- Regarding the list of Gatneta and Aghadi which
are approved by Divisional Commissioner, Amravati.                D

    S.No    Name of Party/          Gatneta
            Aghadi/Gat

    1)      Akola Vikas             Shri Madan Babula!
                                                                  E
            Mahaaghadi              Bhargad

    2)      Mahanagar Sudhar        Shri Harish Ratanlal
            Samiti                  Alimchandani

    3)      Shivsena                Smt. Manusha Sanjay           F
                                    Shelke

    4)      Akola Shahar Vikas      Shri Beni Sh. Ganga
            Aghadi                  Beniwale.

                                                                  G
    The Divisional Commissioner Amravati had issued a letter
bearing no. MNC/Namuna 5/akola/MNC/12/2012 Dtd.7/6/
2012 by which it is communicated to Municipal Corporation
that four Aghadi and Gatneta are registered under the
provisions of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members               H
114         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A     Disqualification Act and the list of the same is appended
      herewith

                                                Sci/-
                                    Municipal Secretary Akola"

B          17. Before above communication the Divisional
      Commissioner had passed order dated 28.08.2012, relevant
      extracts of the same are reproduced as under:

          "BEFORE SHRI GANESH THAKUR, DIVISIONAL
C         COMMISSIONER,AMRAVATI DIVISION,AMRAVATI.

                   Case No. 3/Akola M.C/2011-12

      (1) Shri Harish Ratanlalji Alimchandani, Party leader,
  Mahanagar Sudhar Committee, Akola, Municipal Corporation,
D Akola, R/o.Aalsi Plots, Tq & Distt.Akola      .... Applicant

          (2) Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad, Party Leader, Akola
      Vikas Mahaaghadi, Municipal Corporation, Akola, R/o. Geeta
      Nagar, Tq & Distt. Akola                       ... Applicant
E         Adv. Milind Vaishnav .... On behalf of Applicant No. 1

                               ORDER

         As per Maharashtra Local Authority Membership
F        Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as
         "Disqualification Act") and Rule 3(a) of the
         Maharashtra Local Authority Membership
         Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to
         as "Disqualification Rules") thereunder, on 05/03/2012
G        Shri Harish Ratanlalji Alimchandani, Party Leader,
         Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, Municipal
         Corporation, Akola submitted proposal in prescribed
         form for registration of "Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti,
         Ako la", sponsored by" Bhartiya Janata Party" in the
H        registration book of Divisional Commissioner Office.
AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR                      115
  SU DHAR SAMIT!, AKOLA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

 Alongwith the present application the applicant no.1         A
 has filed list of members (List of Councillors). The
 applicant no.2, Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad, Party
 Leader, Akola Vika~ Aghadi, Municipal Corporation,
 Akola on 16/03/2012 submitted proposal in prescribed
 form as per provisions of Disqualification Act for           B
 registration of Akola Vikas Mahaaghadi sponsored by
 Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress in registration book of
 the office of Divisional Commissioner. Alongwith the
 proposal in prescribed form the applicant has
 submitted list of total 35 members (List of Councillors).    c
 On scrutiny of both the proposals, it comes to the notice
 that, in the proposal submitted by applicant no.1 the
 name of Shri Sanjay Babula! Badone is at Sr.no.20
 and name of Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone is at
                                                              D
 Sr.no.21. So also, in the proposal filed by applicant
 no. 2 the name of Shri Sanjay Babula! Badone is at
 Sr.no.(Five) (2) and name of Sau. Madhuri Sanjay
 Badone is at Sr.no.(Five)(3). As the names of Shri
 Sanjay Babula! Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay
 Badone are mentioned in both the lists, confusion has
                                                              E
 been created as to which vanguard/front they are
 members. Therefore, by notice dt. 23/03/2012 both the
 applicants and City Secretary of Municipal Corporation
 were informed to remain present for hearing on 27/
 03/2012 alongwith original documents and proof.              F

 On 27/03/2012 both the applicants alongwith their
 Advocates and City Secretary of Municipal Corporation
 Shri Gajanan Madhusudan Pande remained present
 for hearing. In the said case, Adv. G.B. Lohiya advanced     G
 argument on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Akola.
 Adv. Santosh Rahate advanced his argument on behalf
 of Shri Sanjay Babula! Badone and Sau. Madhuri
 Sanjay Badone.                      •
                                                              H
116    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A     In the affidavit dt. 14/03/2012 sworn by Shri Sanjay
      Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone
      there is no name and signatures of witnesses and on
      14/03/2012 the said affidavit has been recorded at
      Sr.no.174/12 by Notary Shri R.R. Deshpande, Adv.
 B    As per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, the said
      affidavit cannot be held as complete unless attested.
      Therefore, there is no sufficient scope to treat the said
      affidavit of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau.
      Madhuri Sanjay Badone as valid.
 c
      After considering all the aspects above in totality and
      on careful perusal of concerned documents filed in
      the case it comes to the notice that, from the entry
      made by Stamp Vendor on the stamp papers, the
 D    stamp papers appear to have been purchased on 23/
      02/2012 for the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Babulal
      Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone attached
      to the proposal dt. 05/03/2012 submitted by applicant
      no.1 Shri Harish Alimchandani to the Divisional
 E    Commissioner for registering the Mahanagar Sudhar
      Samiti sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party as per
      provisions of rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules. Yet
      the date of attestation being not as '23/02/2012' it is
      "22/02/2012". How the affidavit has been sworn on
 F    22/02/2012 by purchasing stamp papers on 23/02/
      2012 is an incomprehensible aspect. He filed Xerox
      copies of said affidavit after receipt of notice in the
      case before the Divisional Commissioner. It is a
      notable aspect that, Shri HarishAlimchandani has not
 G    submitted original copies of affidavits during hearing
      of present case.

      Shri Sanjay Babula! Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay
      Badone have been elected from Prabhag no. 34-A
 H    and no.34-B in the Akola Municipal Corporation
AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR 117
  SUDHAR SAMITl,AKOLA[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

 elections as independent candidates. As the applicant      A
 no.1 and applicant no.2 have failed to file any kind of
 reliable documents in regard as to in which front
 created in the Akola Municipal Corporation Shri
 Sanjay Babulal Badone and Sau. Madhuri Sanjay
 Badone have participated, I have come to the               B
 conclusion that it does not become clear that definitely
 to which vanguard/Committee/front out of Mahanagar
 Sudhar Committee sponsored by Bhartiya Janta Party
 or Akola Vikas Mahaaghadi sponsored by Bhartiya
 Rashtriya Congress, Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone and         C
 Sau. Madhuri Sanjay Badone are attached.

 Therefore, the following order is being passed.

                        ORDER
                                                            D
 (1) As per provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority
 Membership Disqualification Act 1986 and Rule 3(a)
 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership
 Disqualification Rules, 1987, the proposal submitted
 by Shri Harish RatanlaljiAlimchandani, Party Leader,       E
 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, Municipal
 Corporation, Akola in prescribed form for registration
 of "Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola", sponsored by
 Bhartiya Janata Party on 05/03/2012 for registration
 in the Register Book of the office of Divisional           F
 Commissioner, is hereby rejected.

 (2) As per provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority
 Membership Disqualification Act 1986 and Rule 3(a)
 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Membership              G
 Disqualification Rules, 1987, the proposal submitted
 by Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad, Party Leader, Akola
 Vikas Mahaaghadi, Akola, Municipal Corporation,
 Akola in prescribed form for registration of " Akola
 Vikas Mahaaghadi Akola", sponsored by Bhartiya             H
118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A        Rashtriya Congress Party on 16/03/2012 for
         registration in the Register Book of the office of
         Divisional Commissioner, is hereby rejected.

         The said order passed today on 28 1h August, 2012
 B       under my signature and seal.

                                      Sd/- 28.08.2012
                                      (Ganesh Thakur)
                            Divisional Commissioner, Amravati"

 C       18. We have gone through the above two documents.
   Order dated 28.08.2012 passed by Divisional Commissioner,
   Amravati, whereby the application for registration was
   disposed of, shows that the application of the writ pe.titioners
   was rejected as affidavits of Sanjay Babula! Badone
 D (respondent no. 14) and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone were
   not complete. The two, who were elected from Prabhag no.31
   and Prabhag no. 34-B as independent candidates, failed to
   file any document to show as to which group they belonged.
   Their names figured in two groups.
 E
        19. In the order dated 28.08.2012 the Divisional
   Commissioner also referred to a serious infirmity in accepting
   the proposal, as he found that the affidavit was sworn to and
   attested on 22.02.2012, whereas the stamps were purchased
 F on 23.02.2012 which the Divisional Commissioner held to be
   an incomprehensible act of the proposer. Such serious
   infirmities which weighed with the Divisional Commissioner
   in passing the order of rejection dated 28.08.2012 cannot be
   found fault with. Considering the Scheme of the 1987 Rules,
 G we are convinced that it was incumbent upon the Divisional
   Commissioner to hold a meaningful exercise of scrutinizing
   the proposal for registration and pass a positive order of
   registration and then alone the exception carved out under
   Section 31 A(2) of the 1949 Act, even for the limited purpose
   to get rid of disqualification under the 1987 Rules can be
 H allowed to operate. Viewed in that respect also the order dated
  AJAY RAMDAS RAMTEKEANDANR. v. MAHANAGAR 119
    SU DHAR SAMIT!, AKOLA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

28.08.2012 assumes greater significance and, therefore, A
unless and until the said order was set aside in the manner
known to law, the formation of the aghadi as claimed by the
first respondent could not have come into effect.

     20. It is not disputed that no one challenged the order dated
                                                                   8
28.08.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, as such
the same has attained finality. That being so, the Mahanagar
Sudhar Samiti, Akola (respondent no.1) cannot be said to be
a registered group as required under second proviso of sub-
section (2) of Section 31A of the Act of 1949. In our opinion,     c
the High Court has erred in law by ignoring the above order of
the Divisional Commissioner, and holding that respondent no.
1 stood registered. If there was objection to registration of an
aghadi, on the ground that names of certain members were
falsely or wrongly shown in the list, the Commissioner had no D
option but to verify the same. And, in such cases, unless the
verification is done, an aghadi can not be said to have got
registered, by merely submitting an application within one
month of election to Municipal Corporation. Had the writ
petitioners challenged order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the E
Divisional Commissioner, with the Resolution dated
29.04.2013, the situation would have been different. But in the
present case, order of Divisional Commissioner rejecting
application for registration has attained finality, and same
cannot be ignored. As such, writ petition filed by respondent F
nos. 1 to 3 questioning validity of resolution dated 29.04.2013
was liable to be dismissed.

    21. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated        G
14.8.2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition no. 2571
of 2013 is hereby set aside, and the Resolution dated
29.04.2013 shall stand restored. No orders as to costs.

Devika Gujral                                     Appeal allowed
                                                                   H