Judgment : (PER S. A. BOBDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this court for quashing the order dated 19.04. 2012 by which the respondent no.1 – Mayor of the Thane Municipal Corporation has recognized the respondent no.5 – Manoj Tukaram Shinde as Leader of the opposition in the House constituted in pursuance of the general elections held to the Corporation of the City of Thane. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the act of Mayor in recognizing the respondent no.5 as Leader of the opposition is contrary to Section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, because a person from a party in opposition having the greatest numerical strength has not been recognized as the Leader of the opposition. In short, the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1, being Leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) which had a strength of 34 members in the newly constituted House ought to have been recognized as Leader of the opposition instead of the respondent no.5, who belongs to the Indian National Congress (INC) which had only a strength of 18 members in the newly constituted House. 4. After elections to the general body were held on 16.02.2012, the party-wise composition of the House was as follows : (a) Shiv Sena Party -53 (b) Nationalist Congress Part -34 (c) Indian National Congress -18 (d) Bharatiya Janata Party -8 (e) Maharashtra Navnirman Sena -7 (f) Bahujan Samaj Party -2 (g) Republican Party of India -1 (h) Independents -7 Total -130 After the House was constituted on 6.3.2012, the respondent no.1, who belongs to the Shiv Sena Party was elected as a Mayor. The respondent no.5 – Manoj Tukaram Shinde, being the Leader of the INC in the House, staked his claim for being appointed as a Leader of the opposition before the respondent no.1 – Mayor. On 19.4.2012, the Mayor appointed the respondent no.5 – Manoj Tukaram Shinde as the Leader of the opposition. On the same day, the petitioner no.1, apparently, being the Leader of the NCP, staked his claim for appointment of petitioner no.2 as a Leader of the opposition in his capacity as member of the NCP and the Lokshahi Aghadi, which was formed after the elections. 5. On the same day, the petitioner no.1, apparently, being the Leader of the NCP, staked his claim for appointment of petitioner no.2 as a Leader of the opposition in his capacity as member of the NCP and the Lokshahi Aghadi, which was formed after the elections. 5. At this juncture, it may be noted that a post-poll alliance of 65 members was formed comprising of the following:- (a) Nationalist Congress Part -34 (b) Indian National Congress -18 (c) Maharashtra Navnirman Sena -7 (d) Indpendents -6 Total -65 This Aghadi was known as “Lokshahi Aghadi”. It is the petitioners' case that this Lokshahi Aghadi has elected the petitioner no.1 as its Leader. We must, however, observe at the out-set that we have not considered the claim of the petitioner no.1 in his capacity as a Leader of the Lokshahi Aghadi because it was a post-poll alliance under Section 31A of the Act which reads as under: “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 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, shall be made by the Corporation by nominating Councillors in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2):- (a) Standing Committee; (b) Transport Committee; (c) Any Special Committee appointed under section 30; (d) Any ad hoc Committee appointed under section 31. (2) In nominating the Councillors on the Committee, the Corporation shall take into account the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered 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: Provided that, nothing contained in this subsection be construed as preventing the Corporation 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 under this Act, the recognized parties or registered parties or groups, 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 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 prepoll aghadi or front. (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.” In terms, an aghadi or a front may be formed under this section only for the purpose of appointment by nomination on committees. The registration of the aghadi is also for the same purpose vide the second proviso to subsection (2). 6. In our view this matter must be squarely decided in terms of Section 19-IAA of the Act which reads as under:- 19-IAA. Leader of Opposition.-(1) An elected Councillor who is, for the time being, the Leader of the Party in opposition, having greatest numerical strength and recognized as such by the Mayor, shall be the Leader of the 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, recognize the Leader of any one of such parties as a Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of this Act and such recognition shall be final and conclusive. 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, recognize the Leader of any one of such parties as a Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of this Act and such recognition shall be final and conclusive. (2) There shall be paid to the Leader of the Opposition such honoraria and allowances and other facilities as may be provided by regulations made in this behalf by the Corporation. 7. On a plain reading of Section 19-IAA, we find that the mandate of the the section is that the Leader of the party in opposition which has the greatest numerical strength alone must be recognized by the Mayor as a Leader of the opposition. On a true construction of the entire section, including the explanation, leads to the conclusion that the provision casts a duty on the Mayor to recognize the Leader of the party in opposition by the only criteria laid down by the section i.e. the greatest numerical strength of a party in opposition. Thus, the section casts an obligation on the Mayor to determine, firstly, which party in opposition has the greatest numerical strength and then recognize the Leader of that party as a Leader of the opposition. The law in plain terms does not give the Mayor any choice as to who should be recognized as a Leader of the opposition but, on the other hand, mandates the recognition of a Leader of an opposition party which has the greatest numerical strength. In the present case, therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the Mayor ought to have chosen the Leader of NCP as the Leader of opposition since it is that party which had the greatest numerical strength deserves to be accepted. 8. Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mayor and the respondent no.5, who is being chosen as the Leader of the opposition, however, contended that the Mayor was well within his rights to recognize respondent no.5 as a Leader of the opposition because he was the only Leader of opposition party who came forward to stake his claim. Jahagirdar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Mayor and the respondent no.5, who is being chosen as the Leader of the opposition, however, contended that the Mayor was well within his rights to recognize respondent no.5 as a Leader of the opposition because he was the only Leader of opposition party who came forward to stake his claim. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it is no part of the Mayor's duty to invite the Leader of the party having the greatest numerical strength and recognize him as a Leader of the opposition party after ascertaining the relative strength of the various parties. Mr. Dwarkadas contended that it is possible that in a given case though a party in opposition may have the greatest numerical strength amongst the parties in opposition, it may not want to accept the post of the Leader of the opposition. No doubt it is possible that in a rare case a Leader of a party which has the greatest numerical strength may not want to be appointed as a Leader, but this submission cannot be countenanced in the present case. Admittedly, the respondent no.1-Mayor did not make any effort on his part to ascertain the relative numerical strength of the parties in opposition with a view to appoint the Leader of the party having greatest numerical strength. Having failed to do so, we do not see how this contention can be raised by the respondent no.1. In any case the question of refusal arrives after an offer is made upon the ascertainment of the relative numerical strength. In any event, we are not inclined to accept the submission that the Leader of the opposition party which has the greatest numerical strength must first stake its claim for being appointed as a Leader of the opposition before the Mayor, otherwise the Mayor is not bound to appoint the Leader of an opposition party having the greatest numerical strength. To accept this contention would, in our view, defeat the purpose of Section 19IAA which clearly mandates that the Mayor must recognize as a Leader of the opposition from the parties which is the greatest numerical strength. It is not as if the section contemplates the appointment of a Leader of the opposition who comes first to the Mayor and seeks the appointment as a Leader of the opposition. It is not as if the section contemplates the appointment of a Leader of the opposition who comes first to the Mayor and seeks the appointment as a Leader of the opposition. The section, in our view, casts a solemn duty on the Mayor to ascertain the relative numerical strength of the opposition parties and appoint the Leader of the party which has the greatest numerical strength. The section does not confer a choice on the Mayor to appoint any one except a Leader from a party having the greatest numerical strength. 9. Mr. Dwarkadas relied on a decision of Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Shivram Mehere vs. City of Akola Municipal Corporation and others [2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 847]. We, however, find that the controversy arose from an entirely different set of facts in that case and the Mayor had, in fact, asked members of several opposition parties to submit consent for being appointed as a Leader of the opposition. The members not having given their consent, the Mayor was constrained to appoint the Leader of a party which did not have the greatest numerical strength. That case has no application to the facts of the present case. Similarly, we find that the other decision relied on by the respondents in the case of Abdul Rashid s/o Abdul Sattar and ors. vs. Vikas s/o Ratanlal Jain and ors. [ 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 902 ] arose in an entirely different set of circumstances. It may, however, be noted that the Division Bench in that case observed vide para 15 that 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. 10. Lastly, Mr. Jahagirdar the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in view of the payer clause, where the petitioners have not claimed the status of a Leader of opposition only on behalf of the NCP but has also claimed that status on behalf of the single Aghadi i.e. Lokshahi Aghadi. Lastly, Mr. Jahagirdar the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in view of the payer clause, where the petitioners have not claimed the status of a Leader of opposition only on behalf of the NCP but has also claimed that status on behalf of the single Aghadi i.e. Lokshahi Aghadi. It is true that the petitioners have made a claim also on the basis that petitioner no.2 is appointed as a Leader of the largest Aghadi but i.e. a prayer in the alternative, we are not inclined to dismiss the petition only on the ground of such an alternative prayer. 11. In the result, the Rule is made absolute in terms of payer clauses (a) and (b). In the circumstances of the case, we further direct the Mayor – respondent no.1 to act in accordance with Section 19-IAA of the Act and nominate the leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) as the Leader of the opposition since undisputedly the NCP has the maximum number of members from amongst the parties in opposition. 12. At this stage, Mr. Oak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-Mayor prays for a stay of the order. We see no reason to do so, particularly having regard to the fact that the impugned recognition done by the Mayor of respondent no. 5 was stayed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 01.05.2012. Prayer is, therefore, rejected. 13. Civil Application No. 1643 of 2012 does not survive and stands disposed as such.