JUDGMENT - MHASE S.B., J.:---Heard Mr. K.C. Sant, and Mr. P.R. Kateshwarkar, learned Counsel for petitioners in respective petitions, Mr. Goolam Wahanvati, learned Advocate General with Mr. E.P. Savant, Government Pleader and Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P., Mr. Mandlik, Mr. Soman, Mr. S.R. Barlinge and Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel for respective respondents. 2. Both these writ petitions are pertaining to the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and therefore, are being disposed of by common judgment. Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 is filed by the petitioners who are Corporators of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation elected in the elections which were held in the year 1999, belonging to Congress (I) Party. It appears that as per the practice then prevailing, the then Mayor, Mr. Karad, designated the petitioner No. 2 as a Leader of Opposition in the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad and by the letter dated 17-5-2001 the Mayor informed that except party in power the 23 Corporators from the opposition have consented for the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as a Leader of Opposition and accordingly the Mayor issued a letter to that effect to the Commissioner of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. However, later on after the election of the Mayor was held in 2002, the controversy in respect of nomination and/or recognition of the Leader of Opposition started and the controversy commenced in view of the introduction of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which came into force on 8-1-2002, as per provisions of this section, the Congress (I) Party claims that their representative in the House shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition by the Mayor. As against this, it is the contention of the Mayor that the 22 Corporators from the opposition, by majority, have consented for recognising the respondent No. 3 as a Leader of Opposition, and therefore, he shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. The respondent No. 3 is elected as a Corporator of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad in the year 1999 as an independent candidate. Accordingly the Mayor has issued a letter dated 4-7-2002 to the Commissioner. While issuing the said letter, the Mayor has relied on the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The respondent No. 3 is elected as a Corporator of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad in the year 1999 as an independent candidate. Accordingly the Mayor has issued a letter dated 4-7-2002 to the Commissioner. While issuing the said letter, the Mayor has relied on the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. This letter is challenged by the petitioners by filing this writ petition seeking an interpretation of the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Act. 3. The second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 3481 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioners who are elected Corporators of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation belonging to Republican Party of India. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of section 19-IAA and claimed that the said section is constitutionally invalid, and prayed that the same be struck down. 4. Before we proceed to analyse the respective challenges raised by the petitioners, it is necessary to note the partywise position of the Corporators in the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, which is as under : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) Shivsena 19 (ii) Bharatiya Janata Party 17 (iii) Indian National Congress (I) 12 (iv) Nationalist Congress Party 04 (v) RPI (Ambedkar Group) 03 (vi) RPI (Gade Group) 03 (vii) Muslim League 01 (viii) Communist Party 01 (ix) Samajwadi Party 01 (x) Independent 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 83 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The relevant provision which was introduced in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is as follows :- "19-IAA (1) An elected Councillor who is, for the time being, the leader of the party having greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Mayor, shall be the Leader of Opposition. Explanation.—Where there are two or more parties in the opposition, having the same numerical strength, the Mayor shall, having regard to the status of the party, recognise the leader of any one of such parties as a Leader of Opposition for the purposes of this Act and such recognition shall be final and conclusive. (2) There shall be paid to the Leader of Opposition such honoraria and allowances and others facilities as may be provided by regulations made in this behalf by the Corporation." 5. (2) There shall be paid to the Leader of Opposition such honoraria and allowances and others facilities as may be provided by regulations made in this behalf by the Corporation." 5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 have contended that according to the above referred section, the leader of a party having greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Mayor shall be the Leader of the Opposition. According to them, the party means the political party, namely, the Congress (I), which is having greatest numerical strength, and therefore, its elected Councillor shall be designated and/or recognised as a Leader of Opposition. 6. Mr. Sant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when there are opposition parties with unequal strength, then the Councillor of the party having greatest numerical strength has to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition and in that eventuality, the role of Mayor in recognising the Leader of Opposition is formal one and Mayor is under an obligation to recognise the leader of said party as a Leader of Opposition. According to Mr. Sant, the role of Mayor becomes important which there are more opposition parties in the opposition having the same numerical strength. In that eventuality, the Mayor will have to take into consideration the status of a party while recognising the leader of opposition for the purposes of this Act, otherwise, with unequal strength of opposition parties, the Mayor has to recognise a Councillor of that party which has a greatest numerical strength, as a Leader of Opposition, and no option is left with the Mayor. 7. Mr. Sant, learned Counsel further submitted that the interpretation drawn and the practice followed by the Mayor that out of the total opposition members, how many supports to whom and thereby a Councillor who has greatest support from total opposition is to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition, is a wrong interpretation of the provisions of section 19-IAA of the said Act. As a against this, the respondents Nos. As a against this, the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have submitted that the word "party" appearing in section 19-IAA of the Act shall not be taken or interpreted as a "Political Party" and it shall be interpreted as opposition party and/or a group of Councillors in Association as a party and then on the basis of the greatest numerical strength in favour of a Councillor, the said Councillor shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. Thus, the respondents submitted that total members in the opposition shall be taken into consideration as a "Party" who enjoys the support of the majority or having support of greatest number of Councillors shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. 8. The second ground of attack by the respondents is that the decision taken by the Mayor in the House recognising a Councillor as a Leader of Opposition has been given finality by the said provisions, and therefore, in a democratic set up the business of the House, namely, the Corporation, cannot be questioned especially the decision of the Mayor recognising a Councillor as a Leader of Opposition cannot be questioned in the Court. For the said purpose, the learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of India. According to them, as in the case of Legislature the proceedings in the Legislature cannot be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of the procedure, in the same manner, the decision of the Mayor in respect of the Leader of Opposition, taken in the House, cannot be called in question. The learned Counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the case law relying upon the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of India and it is submitted that the same rigor will apply to the decision taken by the Mayor in the house in respect of the Leader of Opposition. 9. The petitioners in other petition, have submitted that the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, runs contrary of the basic structure of the Constitution, namely, the democracy. According to them, as the said section 19-IAA of the Act, is not taking into consideration the total opposition for the purposes of recognising the Leader of opposition, but only a political party having greatest numerical number, the said section violates the democratic principles. 10. According to them, as the said section 19-IAA of the Act, is not taking into consideration the total opposition for the purposes of recognising the Leader of opposition, but only a political party having greatest numerical number, the said section violates the democratic principles. 10. It is further submitted that if the said section is allowed to continue and/or remain on the Statute Book, it will allow the small political parties to have a Leader of Opposition of their party in the House as against the group other political parties and independents being the larger one, and therefore, there would be no proper representation as a Leader of opposition. Therefore, the following points arise for consideration : (i) What is the proper interpretation of section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, namely, whether it contemplates a Councillor to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition belonging to a party, or political party which has greatest numerical strength and/or shall mean that all the opposition shall be taken into consideration as a party and the Councillor having greatest numerical strength shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition? (ii) Whether, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Mayor recognising the leader of Opposition as in the case of Legislature and/or in view of the finality given to the decision of the Mayor taken in the House, as provided in the said section? (iii) Whether section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is valid? 11. For the sake of convenience the last question i.e. question No. (iii) is taken up first for consideration. According to the learned Counsel, section 19-IAA violates the democratic principles, and therefore, it is violative of basic structure of the Constitution. This submission is without any merit. The elections in the Corporation are contested on the basis of political parties, and therefore, a Councillor of a political party which has a greatest numerical strength shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. This is in consonance with the democratic principles. On the contrary, the legislature has provided the provisions of this section for the purposes of having one and the similar practice in respect of nominating and/or designating the Leader of Opposition in all the Municipal Corporations in the State of Maharashtra and to abolish the different practices adopted in different Municipal Corporations. On the contrary, the legislature has provided the provisions of this section for the purposes of having one and the similar practice in respect of nominating and/or designating the Leader of Opposition in all the Municipal Corporations in the State of Maharashtra and to abolish the different practices adopted in different Municipal Corporations. This provision has also been made keeping in view the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986. This Act provides for anti-defection and disqualifications, and therefore, it is incorrect to contend that in any way the democratic set up has been affected by the system provided in section 19-IAA of the Act, in respect of the appointment of the Leader of Opposition. 12. The other ground raised namely, that a small group will be eligible to have a leader of opposition of their party, is also of no consequence. When the statute provides that a party having the greatest numerical strength. Councillor of such party is to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition, which takes into consideration the popular will reflected in the total area of the Corporation, and therefore, it is in accordance with the democratic principles and it also helps to have consistency in respect of nomination and/or recognition of the Leader of Opposition of particular party. On the contrary, if the practice is allowed to have Leader of Opposition from all the opposition parties and nominate and/or recognise a Councillor having greatest support, there is every possibility that a Leader of Opposition will be changed as and when he loses the support of the members in the opposition and that will lead to an uncertainty. As the party in power is supposed to have its own policies to be implemented, there should also be consistent opposition policy and therefore, certainty of leader of opposition. While making this provision, preference has been given to a party which is having the greatest numerical strength in the House. Thus, we find that the said section is not in any way against the democratic principles and/or set up of constitution. Except this, no other ground was made out. We hold that the section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is a valid one. 13. Thus, we find that the said section is not in any way against the democratic principles and/or set up of constitution. Except this, no other ground was made out. We hold that the section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is a valid one. 13. Section 19-IAA can be analysed as follows : In order to recognise a person as a leader of opposition : (a) He must be an elected Councillor for the time being ; (b) He should be a leader of the party in opposition; (c) Said party in opposition is having greatest numerical strength and; (d) recognised as such by the Mayor In case of two or more parties in opposition having the same numerical strength, the Mayor shall recognise a leader of opposition having regard to the status of the party in opposition. 14. In order to recognise a person as a Leader of Opposition, he must belong to a party in opposition and if the numerical strength of the said party in opposition is the greatest one, then the leader of said opposition party is to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. The phraseology and the language used in the said section clearly shows that the Councillor of a party in opposition and who is a leader of the said party, if the said party is having greatest numerical strength has to be recognised by the Mayor, as a Leader of Opposition. In case of unequal strength of the party in opposition, the Mayor has no other option but to recognise the Councillor of a party having greatest numerical strength as a Leader of Opposition. The whole controversy which has been raised by the respondents is in respect of the word "party" and/or "party in opposition". According to the learned Counsel for the respondents "party" or "party in Opposition" means all the parties or all the Councillors whether they belong to a party or independent together is a party in opposition for the purposes of this section, and therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that all the opposition together has to be considered as a party and a person having the greatest numerical strength and/or support shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. He submitted that meaning of the word "party" as given in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 shall not be attributed to the word "party", "Aghadi" or "front" given in section 19-IAA and according to the respondents the Mayor has rightly designated and/or recognised the respondent No. 3, who is an independent candidate to be the leader of opposition. Thus, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 tried to justly the act of the Mayor. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel because the elections to the Municipal Corporations have been conducted on party basis. Not only that but the anti-defection law i.e. the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1987 is applicable to the members elected in the Municipal Council. This Act defines the Councillor as a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation or the Municipal Council or Zilla Parishad. "Local authority" has been defined as a Municipal Corporation, a Municipal Council, a Zilla Parishad or a Panchayat Samiti. The words "original political party" have been defined in relation to a Councillor or a member means a political party to which he belongs for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 3. Word "municipal party" has been defined in relation to the Councillor belonging to any political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the Explanation to section 3, means : (i) In the case of a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation, the group consisting of all Councillors of the Municipal Corporation for the time being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said Explanation. (ii) In the case of a Councillor of a Municipal Council, the group consisting of all the Councillors of the Municipal Council for the time being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said Explanation. (ii) In the case of a Councillor of a Municipal Council, the group consisting of all the Councillors of the Municipal Council for the time being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said Explanation. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the disqualification on the ground of defection and in explanation it has been stated that : (a) a person elected as a Councillor, or as the case may be a member shall be deemed to belong to the political party or aghadi or front, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such Councillor or member: (b) a nominated or co-opted Councillor or member shall- (i) where he is a member of any political party or aghadi or front on the date of his nomination, or as the case may be, co-option as such Councillor, or as the case may be, member be deemed to belong to such political party or aghadi or front. (ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party or aghadi or front of which he becomes, or as the case may be, first becomes a member of such party or aghadi or front before the expiry of six months from the date on which he is nominated or co-opted as such Councillor, or as the case may be member; (c) ........... (Not applicable). Word "aghadi" or "front" have been defined to mean a group of persons who have formed themselves into party for the purposes of setting up of candidate for election to the local authority. 15. Thus on combined reading of the words referred to above, that the word "party" appearing in section 19 has to be interpreted as a political party in opposition. What is further important to be noted is that for the purposes of implementation of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, the Rules have been framed and as per those Rules, the leader of each municipal party is expected to submit the information about the members of his political party or municipal party to the Municipal Corporation or Council in the prescribed form. Not only that, but they have also to convey the leader of each party or front, aghadi to the Corporation or Council, and the said leader is to be elected from amongst the political party or front. Not only that, but they have also to convey the leader of each party or front, aghadi to the Corporation or Council, and the said leader is to be elected from amongst the political party or front. Thus, the whole system is based on political party and in a democratic set up, it is the political party which sets up the candidates in the election can control its members from committing any defection. What is to be taken into consideration is that section 19-IAA of the Act does not contemplate an election of a person but it contemplates simpliciter recognition by the Mayor of an elected Councillor who is a leader of the party in opposition having the greatest numerical strength as a Leader of Opposition. If all the parties in opposition together are to be considered as one opposition, and thereafter the person having the greatest support and/or numerical strength is to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition, then in that circumstances, it violates the language of the said section, because the act of the greatest numerical strength and/or support is not contemplated in the said section. What is contemplated is the greatest numerical strength of a party in opposition. Therefore, the Mayor has to see that a person is an elected Councillor, belongs to party in opposition, and the said opposition party is having greatest strength in the House. One more thing required to be looked into is that an elected Councillor who is a leader of the party in opposition has to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. One more thing required to be looked into is that an elected Councillor who is a leader of the party in opposition has to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. Now, the leader of the party in opposition means that a leader of political party which is sitting in opposition because as per the anti-defection law, referred to hereinabove, the original party, aghadi or front which has set up its candidates in the election, after election will have its municipal party in the house and each of the said municipal party is required to state the leader of that municipal party and if party sits in opposition, then in that circumstances, that party will be treated as a party in opposition, and in the light of the same, the provisions of section 19-IAA of the Act will have to be looked into, namely, an elected Councillor who is a leader of the party in opposition, having the greatest numerical strength, has to be recognised by the Mayor as Leader of Opposition, and therefore, the interpretation sought to be made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 is not proper, and the same deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 16. In order to have a complete democratic system in the Corporation law, which governs the democratic conduct of the elected Councillors or Corporators is required to be looked in harmony, and therefore, while interpreting section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1987 cannot be ignored and the word "party" appearing in section 19 of the Act is required to be interpreted with reference to the original party, front or aghadi or municipal party. Thus, what we find is that section 19 does not contemplate any sort of election and the moment the Mayor tries to find out support from the political parties, the process of election amongst the total opposition commences, which is not at all contemplated by the provisions of section 19-IAA. The Mayor could have some better role when the case falls under explanation. The explanation also supports the interpretation which we have given to section 19-IAA. It contemplates that when there are two or more parties in opposition having same numerical strength, then the Mayor will decide having regard to the status of a party the leader of opposition. The Mayor could have some better role when the case falls under explanation. The explanation also supports the interpretation which we have given to section 19-IAA. It contemplates that when there are two or more parties in opposition having same numerical strength, then the Mayor will decide having regard to the status of a party the leader of opposition. If the opposition is to be treated as one party, as per the contentions raised by the respondent, then in that eventuality the explanation becomes redundant. The learned Counsel for the respondents tried to submit that in the opposition also there can be two groups and two groups can be treated as two parties and if there is equal strength, then the Mayor will have role, the said contention is incorrect. Because, in that eventuality, firstly the Mayor will have to see that what is the strength of the political party in the opposition and that can only be done by holding an election for the post of Leader of Opposition and in case of equal votes, it can be said that there is equal numerical strength. The legislature has not desired elections while recognising a Councillor as a leader of opposition, otherwise the language and the drafting of the said section would have been in different manner. The legislature wanted that a political party which has the greatest numerical strength and which sits in the opposition, its Councillor shall be recognised as a leader of opposition and that is in order to give certainty to the post of leader of opposition. No doubt, it may happen that within a municipal party in opposition, it may change its leader in the house, but that is within that municipal party or political party and the rest of the parties which are in opposition will not be in any way participating in that process. What we find is that the proper and correct interpretation of section 19-IAA of the Act is that the political party or municipal party which has the greatest numerical strength and which sits in opposition its elected Councillor has to be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. The party requires the formation of group. Similarly, for the purposes of front also formation of group is required. However, under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1987 this is not permissible. The party requires the formation of group. Similarly, for the purposes of front also formation of group is required. However, under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1987 this is not permissible. Prior to the election forming of a party, aghadi or front is permissible, however, after the elections the same is not permissible and more so for the candidates elected as an independent candidates. For this purpose, reference may be made to a decision reported in 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 532, in the case of (Dattatraya Maruti Bawalekar and others v. Pandurang Dagadu Parte and others)1, wherein the Apex Court has considered the provisions of this Act. It was a case of Mahabaleshwar Municipal Council, wherein 17 Councillors were elected to represent various wards in the Council and each of them had contested the election as an independent candidate, Nine of the Independent Councillors formed themselves into an Aghadi which was registered under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987. In the meeting which was held on 31-12-1996 one of the Councillors representing the Aghadi was elected as the President. An application under section 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 was filed by one of the Councillors praying that the nine Councillors who had formed themselves into an Aghadi be disqualified in view of the provisions of the Act. The Apex Court held that the said Councillors had formed an Aghadi as a new party and the same had to be registered under the provisions of the Act. When they formed a new party the position is clear that a person elected as an independent would cease to be an independent and becomes a member of a political party or a front. His status as an independent would come to an end on becoming a member of a front or a group. The said Councillors who could act independently prior to the election or immediately on the election became subject to discipline of the party or front on becoming members thereof. Such party whether would amount to formation of party or became members of such party is immaterial. The spirit of the enactment is that a member of a political party cannot join another or form a political front without incurring disqualification as provided under section 3 unless he is expelled from his party. Such party whether would amount to formation of party or became members of such party is immaterial. The spirit of the enactment is that a member of a political party cannot join another or form a political front without incurring disqualification as provided under section 3 unless he is expelled from his party. The legislation imposes a condition that a person elected as an independent should continue as such without subjecting himself to any party affiliation. 17. The Apex Court had also an opportunity to consider the position of expelled member of a party in the light of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which is similar to the Act of 1987. The Apex Court in the case of (G. Viswanathan v. Speaker, T.N. Legislative Assembly)2, reported in 1996(2) S.C.C. 353 held that in view of the Explanation to para 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule even if a member is thrown out or expelled from the party, for the purposes of the Tenth Schedule he will not cease to be a member of the political party that had set him up as a candidate for the election. He will continue to belong to that political party even if he is treated as "unattached". In view of this, independent elected Councillors are expected to be an independent till their term is over and they cannot form any party, aghadi or front after the elections. If at all, any one has to form a party, aghadi or front, he has to form it prior to the election, otherwise it incurs disqualification. Thus, to say that a total opposition is a party for the purposes of this Act, will lead to a very absurd complications and will place the members in an embarassing situation. Therefore, we find that the word "party" in its proper connotation will have to mean as "municipal party" in the Corporation or Council as the case may be, having the greatest numerical strength and its elected Councillors will have to be recognised as a leader of opposition and, therefore, whatever Mayor has done in the present case is against the provisions of section 19-IAA and the same deserves to be struck down and accordingly, the letter issued by the Mayor dated 4-7-2002 issued to the Commissioner is hereby struck down. 18. 18. The last limb of arguments is based on Article 212 and Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India, namely, the validity of any proceedings in the legislature of a State cannot be questioned on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure and that no officer or member of the legislature of a State in whom powers are vested or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the legislature, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise of those powers by him. Borrowing this principle which is applicable to the legislature of the State, it is submitted that the decision of the Mayor also cannot be questioned on the ground of irregularity of procedure which is a decision taken in the Municipal House by the Mayor. Thus the respondent No. 3 is trying to equate the decision of the Mayor with that of the Legislature of State. 19. Reference is also made to Tenth Schedule where the decision of Speaker in respect of the disqualification has been given finality. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 also pointed out that section 19-IAA of the Act also gives finality to the decision of the Mayor. Thus, an attempt is made to compare the decision of the Mayor with the decision of the Speaker of the House and it is submitted that the decision of the Mayor is also not assailable and/or cannot be questioned before the Court when he takes decision in respect of the leader of opposition. Several decisions were cited, however, we need not go into this aspect in great detail. Firstly, because there is no protection provided in the Constitution or in the Act anywhere; to the Municipal Corporations and/or specifically to the Mayor, similar to Article 212 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, reference to Article 212 of the Constitution of India is out of place and immaterial. Apart from this, similar question has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of (Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu)3, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 412. In that case the questions raised have been summarised in para No. 11(E) and (F) as follows : "(E) That the deeming provision in Paragraph 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule attracts the immunity under Articles 122 and 212. In that case the questions raised have been summarised in para No. 11(E) and (F) as follows : "(E) That the deeming provision in Paragraph 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule attracts the immunity under Articles 122 and 212. The Speaker and the Chairman in relation to the exercise of the powers under the Tenth Schedule shall not be subjected to the jurisdiction of any Court." The Tenth Schedule seeks to and does create a new and non-justiciable area of rights, obligations and remedies to be resolved in the exclusive manner envisaged by the constitution and is not amenable to but constitutionally immune from crucial adjudicative processes. "(F) That even if paragraph 7 erecting a bar on the jurisdiction of courts is held inoperative, the Courts' jurisdiction is, in any event, barred as paragraph 6(1) which imparts a constitutional "finality" to the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and that such concept of "finality" bars examination of the matter by the courts." Similar objection was raised in the present case by the respondents. However, these points have already been concluded by the Apex Court in the case cited (supra) and in para No. 39, it has been held :- "39. The fiction in paragraph 6(2), indeed, places it in the First Clause of Article 122 or 212, as the case may be. The words "proceedings in Parliament" or "proceedings in the legislature of a State" in paragraph 6(2) have their corresponding expression in Articles 122(1) and 212(1) respectively. This attracts an immunity from mere irregularities of procedures. That apart, even after 1986, when the Tenth Schedule was introduced, the Constitution did not evince any intention to invoke Article 122 or 212 in the conduct of resolution of disputes as to the disqualification of members under Articles 191(1) and 102(1). The very deeming provision implies that the proceedings of disqualification are, in fact, not before the House; but only before the Speaker as a specially designated authority. The decision under Paragraph 6(1) is not the decision of the House, nor is the subject to the approval by the House. The decision operates independently of the House. A deeming provision cannot by its creation transcend its own power. The decision under Paragraph 6(1) is not the decision of the House, nor is the subject to the approval by the House. The decision operates independently of the House. A deeming provision cannot by its creation transcend its own power. There is therefore, no immunity under Articles 122 and 212 from judicial scrutiny of the decision of the Speaker or Chairman exercising power under paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule." 20. Thus, the Apex Court has treated Speaker as a Tribunal and exercised the power of judicial review of the decision of the Speaker. What we find is that the attempt has been made in the present matter by the respondents on the basis of propriety to rely on such constitutional provisions for protection of Mayor, but in the absence of a specific protective provision being made in the Constitution and/or in the statute, such inference cannot be drawn. We find that the argument and the submissions made in this behalf are misconceived and even if for the sake of argument it is accepted for a moment, that it was properly submitted, still the above referred decision of the Apex Court answers it. In the result, we find that the grounds raised by the respondents in both the petitions, that the petitions are not maintainable is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be rejected. In this matter, Mr. Dhorde, Mr. Raghuwanshi and Mr. S.C. Bora were appointed as amicus curiae for the purposes of assisting the Court. The learned Counsel have rendered their valuable assistance to the Court. In the result, we pass the following order : 21. Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2002 is allowed. The letter dated 4-7-2002 granting recognition to the respondent No. 3 as a Leader of Opposition is quashed and set aside. 22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Leader of Party having the greatest numerical strength (Congress Party) shall be recognised as a Leader of Opposition. Writ Petition No. 3481 of 2002 is hereby dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs in both the petitions. Order accordingly. ------