Judgment :- ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Collector on 14/10/2008, whereby he registered Aghadi of respondent no.3 in which he included the names of respondents no.4 and 5. 3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows The elections of Wardha Municipal council were held on 19/11/2006. The result of the said elections were declared on 27/11/2006. The petitioner applied under Section 63(2B) for registration of Aghadi which is known as Sonia Wardha Shahar Vikas Aghadi,. He submitted an application to the Collector under his signature and with resolution passed by the eleven members in his Aghadi, to form a Aghadi. After the said application was filed on 26/12/2006, the Collector passed an order thereon on 13/12/2007 registering the said Aghadi. The said Aghadi was also notified in the official gazette dated 15th December, 2007. Respondent no.1 had also applied for registration of his Aghadi under the name and style Wardha Shahar Vikas Munch. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Respondent no.3, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to redecide the application of respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 had applied for registration of Aghadi which included the names of respondents no.4 and 5. The Collector held an enquiy and found that respondents no. 4 and 5 have given their consent for being included in the Aghadi of respondent no.3. Therefore, he passed an order registering respondent no.3’s Aghadi which includes names of respondent nos.4 and 5. The petitioner’s contention is that since the names of respondents no.4 and 5 have already been included in the Aghadi of the petitioner, they could not have been included in the respondent’s Aghadi. The petitioner on account of this reason, feels aggrieved and prefers this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. A few admitted facts, however, be noted first; The petitioner applied for registration of their Aghadi and Collector passed an order registering the Aghadi on 13/12/2007. The said Aghadi was thereafter notified in the official gazette of the State on 15/12/2007 (Annexure E). 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5. A few admitted facts, however, be noted first; The petitioner applied for registration of their Aghadi and Collector passed an order registering the Aghadi on 13/12/2007. The said Aghadi was thereafter notified in the official gazette of the State on 15/12/2007 (Annexure E). Respondent no.3 also had applied for registration of his Aghadi but application was rejected as barred by limitation. In the writ petition, the High Court had directed the Collector to reconsider the application of respondent no. 3 for registration of his Aghadi. The Collector considered the application and registered the Aghadi of respondent no.3 as Wardha Shahar Vikas Munch. The petitioner’s Aghadi known as Wardha Shahar Vikas Aghadi, as notified, consists of eleven members while respondent’s Aghadi consists of ten members as can be seen from the impugned order. Further, admitted fact is that names of Maya Rudrakar – respondent no.4 and Shaikh Imran – respondent no.5 appear in both the Aghadis. 6. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection to the registration of the Aghadi of respondent no.3. The only objection the petitioner has is that it cannot contain name of respondents no.4 and 5 since they are already notified as members of the petitioner’s Aghadi. He submits that no person’s name can appear in both Aghadis. He also submits that once Aghadi is registered and names are notified, those names cannot be included in any other Aghadi and if that is so done that would amount to defection which incurs disqualification. In the context, one has to look into the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Section 63 reads as follows – 63. In the context, one has to look into the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. Section 63 reads as follows – 63. Constitution of Subjects Committees of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class Councils – (1) Each Subjects Committee of the Council appointed under the last preceding section shall consist of such number of councilors as the Council may determine, so however, that the number of members of a Subjects Committee shall not be less than one-forth or more than one-third of the total number of Councillors: Provided that, in so determining the number of the members of any Subjects Committee, a fraction shall be ignored: [Provided further that, on the Women and Child Welfare Committee, not less than seventy-five per cent, of the members shall be from amongst women Councilors: Provided also that, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Women and Child Welfare Committee shall be from amongst the Women and Child Welfare Committee shall be from amongst the women councillor members thereof. Explanation:- For the purpose of computing the number of members at seventy-five per cent, fraction, if any, shall be rounded off to one.] (2) The Collector shall, within seven days of the election of the President under Section 51, call a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of – (a) determining the number of the members of each of the Subject Committees referred to in the last preceding section, and the subjects Committee of which the Vice-President shall be the ex-officio Chairman, and (b) nominating Councillors on the Subjects Committees in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2B). Provided that, the President shall not be eligible for being a member of any of the Subjects Committees [but he shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, any subjects Committee, except that he shall not be entitled to vote threat.] [(2A) The meeting called under subsection (2) shall be presided over by the Collector or such office as the Collector may by order in writing appoint in this behalf. The Collector or such officer shall, when presiding over such meeting, have the same powers as the President of a Council, when presiding over a meeting of the Council has, but shall not have the right to vote. The Collector or such officer shall, when presiding over such meeting, have the same powers as the President of a Council, when presiding over a meeting of the Council has, but shall not have the right to vote. [(2B) In nominating the councillors, the Collector shall take into account the relative strength of recognised parties or registered parties or registered parties or groups and nominate members, as nearly as may be, in proportion to the strength of such parties or group in the Council after consulting the leader of each such party or group: Provided that, nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed as preventing the Collector from nominating on the Committee, any member not belonging to any such party or group: Provided further that, for the purpose of deciding the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or groups, or elected councilors 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 not more than one month from the date of notification of election results, form 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 prepoll aghadi or front. [2C) If any question arises as regards the number of Councillors to be nominated on behalf of such party or group, the decision of the Collector shall be final.] (3) The Chairman of every Subjects Committee (other than the Subjects Committee of which the Vice-President is to be the ex-officio Chairman) shall be elected by the members of that Committee at the meeting convened under subsection (2): Provided that, no councillor shall be eligible to be the Chairman of more than one Subject Committee. 7. For us, second proviso to Sub-Section 2(B) is material and important. The proviso says that if any group is to form a Aghadi it has to apply within one month of declaration of result of the elections for its registration to the Collector and once said Aghadi is registered, the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 becomes applicable to it. 8. We have seen that the names of respondent nos.4 and 5 appear amongst the members of the Aghadi of petitioner. 8. We have seen that the names of respondent nos.4 and 5 appear amongst the members of the Aghadi of petitioner. Once such a Aghadi is notified and their names are included subsequently in another Aghadi, that would be in breach of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. Now, that their names also appear in respondent no.3’s Aghadi, it must be assumed that respondent nos.4 and 5 consented for inclusion of their names in respondent no.3’s Aghadi. In fact, the Collector in his order observed that since respondent nos.4 and 5 have filed an affidavit by way of consent to include their names in another Aghadi, the names are so included. In fact, respondents contend that respondent nos.4 and 5 were never members of the petitioner’s Aghadi and they are members of the respondent’s Aghadi. It cannot in fact lie in the mouth of respondent nos.4 and 5 to say that they are members of respondents Aghadi. Once the Collector after making an enquiry had registered petitioner’s Aghadi with the names of respondent nos.4 and 5, the respondent nos.4 and 5 now cannot say that they never intended to be members of petitioner’s Aghadi. To my mind, that would be in breach of the Disqualification Act and rules thereunder. 9. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.3 contends that the Court had directed the Collector to decide the application of respondent no.3 registering the Aghadi. He submits that the Collector made enquiry, recorded statement of the concerned head, the petitioner and all respondents and has thereafter decided to include the name of respondent nos.4 and 5 in the Aghadi of respondent no.3 and delete from the Aghadi of petitioners. He submits that as a fact the Collector has observed that both respondent nos.4 and 5 have filed affidavit for inclusion of their names in respondent no.3’s Aghadi. He submits that on detailed enquiry he found that the names have to be included in respondent no.3’s Aghadi. To justify this decision the learned counsel relied on the provisions of Rule 4(3) of the Rules under the Disqualification Act. Rule 4 reads as follows – 4. He submits that on detailed enquiry he found that the names have to be included in respondent no.3’s Aghadi. To justify this decision the learned counsel relied on the provisions of Rule 4(3) of the Rules under the Disqualification Act. Rule 4 reads as follows – 4. In rule 4 of the principal rules, for sub-rule (1) the following sub-section be substituted, namely – “(1)(a) Every Councillor in relation to a municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party and a member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party was/is holding office as such on the commencement of the Act in the municipal corporation, municipal council, Zilla Parishad or as the case may be, in Panchayat Samiti shall furnish to the Commissioner, or as the case may be, to the Collector within thirty days from the date of commencement of these rules or within such further period as the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Collector may for sufficient reason allow, a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III. (b) Every Councillor in relation to a municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party and a member in relation to a Panchayat Simiti party after the commencement of the Act who is elected to the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, the Panchayat Samiti before taking his seat, shall furnish to the Commissioner, or, as the case may be, the Collector within thirty days from the date of the declaration of the election results or within such further period as the Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Collector may for sufficient reason allow a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III. Explanation (1) – For the purpose of this sub-rule ‘councillor’ in relation to a Municipal party or a Zilla Parishad party and ‘member’ in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party means a councillor or member belonging to such political party or aghadi or front, which has set up his candidature for the election of Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla Parishad or as the case may be, the Panchayat Samiti. Explanation (2) – For the purpose of this sub-rule, the Commissioner or as the case may be the Collector, after the expiry of the date prescribed for the statement of the particulars and the declaration in Form III may decide as and when need arises about the affiliation of the political party or aghadi or front of the councillor, or as the case may be, the Member on the basis of the election symbol allotted to him at the time of his election. (2) Every Councillor in relation to a municipal party and a Zilla Parishad party and member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party who take seat in the municipal corporation, municipal council, Zilla Parishad as the case may be, in Panchayat Samiti, after the commencement of these rules shall, before taking his seat in the municipal corporation, municipal council, Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti, deposit with the Commissioner or, as the case may be, Collector his election certificate or, as the case may be, a certified copy of the notification nominating him as a member and also furnish to him a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III. Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-rule, “election certificate” means the certificate of election issued under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (Bom.LIX of 1949), the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (Mah.XL of 1965), the City of Nagpur “Corporation Act, 1948, (C.P. and Berar II of 1950), the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962) and the rules made thereunder. 3. A summary of the information furnished by the councillor in relation to a municipal party and a Zilla Parishad party and member in relation to a Panchyat Samiti party, under this rule shall be published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette and if any discrepancy therein is pointed out to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or, as the case may be, Collector, necessary corrigendum shall be published in the said Gazette. If the entire rule is read, it is clear that it relates to submission of information by individual councilor. The information so furnished is required to be published in official gazette. Form No.III speaks of individual information which relate to name of councilor, address and party affiliation etc. If the Collector finds that while furnishing summary of information a mistake has occurred he can correct it. The information so furnished is required to be published in official gazette. Form No.III speaks of individual information which relate to name of councilor, address and party affiliation etc. If the Collector finds that while furnishing summary of information a mistake has occurred he can correct it. It means if the summary as published by him is not in accordance with the information supplied in form No.III, the summary can be corrected. The petitioner has filed the copies of form No.3 filed by all eleven members including respondent no. 4 and 5. If those forms are seen the respondents no.4 and 5 filed form as member of the petitioner’s Aghadi. Thus, the summary was in accordance with this information. If the respondents had contended that they had not signed these form No.III, the Collector should have inquired into and should have got the signature examined through expert or should have at least compared them himself. Without that he could not correct the summary and include the name in other Aghadi. Otherwise it would be very easy for a person to change party and to cross over and then say that he had not signed those forms, it does not bear his signature and that his name be included in other Aghadi. 10. In the instant case there is no finding to the effect that form No.III filed by respondents no.4 and 5 do not bear signature of respondents. In the circumstances, the Collector certainly fell in error in deleting the name of two respondents from the Aghadi of petitioner and adding them to Aghadi of respondent no.3. By doing this he has in fact recognized the crossing over in breach of Disqualification Act. Respondent nos.4 and 5 did not themselves challenge the inclusion of their names in petitioner’s Aghadi by filing writ petition. This conduct goes against respondent nos.4 and 5. 11. I, therefore, find that the respondent nos.4 and 5’s name could not be included in Aghadi of respondent no.3 at all. The order of Collector incorporating their names in Aghadi of respondent no.3 is set aside and the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.