JUDGMENT : J. H. BHATIA, J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing immediately. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Leader of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, District Thane i.e. Respondent No.3. The elections for the Municipal Corporation were held on 11.8.2007 and 79 members were elected. 20 candidates of NCP and 5 independent candidates were elected in the said election and the petitioner was elected to be the Leader of the NCP Group. It is contended by the petitioner that 5 independent members, including the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 formed an Aghadi or a front along with the NCP. For the purpose of representation in the Standing Committee and other Committees of the Municipal Corporation under Section 31-A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ("the Act") the 25 members were treated and recognised as an Aghadi or a front and on the basis of that 5 members of this Aghadi or front were appointed as members to the Standing Committee, which consists of in all 16 members. It is contented by letter dated 5.6.2009, respondent Nos.4 to 7 requested the respondent No.1 - Divisional Commissioner that they be treated as independent Corporators. Respondent No.1 recognised them as separate group and on the basis of that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 also nominated respondent no.5 to the Standing Committee, representing their Group. According to the petitioner, these four members had become members of the Aghadi or front with the NCP and as only four members out of 25 members have separated themselves from this Aghadi, they are liable to be disqualified. The respondent No.1 refused to disqualify them by order dated 10.11.2009 and recognised them as an independent group. Therefore, by this petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 and also seeks direction to respondent No.1 to take action against disqualification of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and to recalculate the strength of the NCP in the House. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. On perusal of the relevant documents, it appears that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and to recalculate the strength of the NCP in the House. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. On perusal of the relevant documents, it appears that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 submitted a declaration on 14.9.2007 before the Divisional Commissioner after the election of the Municipal Corporation to the effect that they had formed a group of themselves, who were elected as independent members and the respondent No. 4 - Narendra Lalchandra Mehta would be the Leader of their group. They further declared that they had decided to support the Nationalist Congress Party in the House. Similarly, one more independent member Shri. Pereira Tery Paul also made a declaration that he was elected as an independent member and he would continue to be independent group of himself and would be the leader of his own group. At the same time, he also declared that he would support the Nationalist Congress Party. Thus, the Nationalist Congress Party, got support of 5 independent members and, therefore, for the purpose of representation in the Standing Committee and other Committees under Section 31-A of the Act, the strength of NCP was treated as 25 and representation was given in the said Committees accordingly. The respondent no. 4 informed the Divisional Commissioner that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 Group of 4 independent members had elected respondent no.7 Mohan Jadav as their Leader and he also requested that their Group of 4 independent members, be recognised as such. To this, the objection was taken by the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner passed an order dated 11.10.2009 (wrongly typed as 10.9.2009) and rejected the objection taken by the petitioner and recognised the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as a group of four independent Corporators. On perusal of the record, there is nothing to show that respondent nos. 4 to 7 had formed any Aghadi or a front or a group along with NCP. The record only reveals that they had formed their own independent group and they had decided to provide support to the NCP in the House. They never became part of the NCP nor there is anything to show that they had created any split or they had left that Aghadi or front. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 would not be applicable to them. They never became part of the NCP nor there is anything to show that they had created any split or they had left that Aghadi or front. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1987 would not be applicable to them. They could not be forced to continue their support to NCP, which is a recognised Political Party in the House. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.