JUDGMENT Z.A. HAQ, J. 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The issue, which falls for consideration in this petition is, “Whether the Resolution No.1 passed in the Special General Meeting of Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on 29.04.2013, nominating the eight members on the Standing Committee is proper and valid as per the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act”. However, a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition is raised by respondent no.1 The Mayor of the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on the ground that the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola Municipal Corporation is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Disqualification Rules, 1987’) and, therefore, this issue also falls for our consideration. 3. We will first deal with the preliminary objection as raised on behalf of respondent no.1The Mayor about the maintainability of the writ petition. Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, has submitted that the writ petition need not be entertained by this Court for two reasons viz. i) The petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act; and ii) The petitioner no.1 is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated by the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987; and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable at its behest and the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are claiming their right through the petitioner no.1 and as the petitioner no.1 itself does not have any existence, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 cannot claim any right through the petitioner no.1 and, therefore, the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 is also not maintainable. 4. As far as the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is concerned, no submissions are made at the time of arguments and, therefore, we are not dealing with the issue. 5. The focus of Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, during arguments was on the point that the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated under the Disqualification Rules of 1987 and, therefore, it cannot maintain the writ petition. 5. The focus of Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, during arguments was on the point that the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti is not a registered “Aghadi” as contemplated under the Disqualification Rules of 1987 and, therefore, it cannot maintain the writ petition. Shri Ghare submitted that the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner on 05.03.2012 and the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti is rejected by the Divisional Commissioner by the order dated 28.08.2012. It is the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor that the “Aghadi” or the “Front” as contemplated under Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 can be said to be in existence if it is registered by the Divisional Commissioner and in the present case, the Divisional Commissioner having rejected the proposal submitted by one Shri Harish Ratanlal Alimchandani to register the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is not in existence and, therefore, it cannot file and maintain the writ petition. Shri Ghare has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012, which was filed by the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, it is already adjudicated that the registration of the “Aghadi” is a sine qua non for its existence and as the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the proposal for registration of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti by the order dated 28.08.2012, now it is not open for the petitioners to contend that the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti exists and it can file and maintain the writ petition. In support of his submission Shri Ghare has relied upon paragraph nos. 26, 27 and 30 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 (which is Annexure-I to the writ petition). The relevant portion of paragraph no. 26 of the above referred judgment relied upon by Shri Ghare which is on Page No.55 of the paper book of the writ petition, is reproduced below: “26. …..........Moreover, second proviso to S.31A(2) comes into play only after “registration” and none of the Respondents have pointed out any such registration of Respondent No.4 Aghadi for said purposes. 26 of the above referred judgment relied upon by Shri Ghare which is on Page No.55 of the paper book of the writ petition, is reproduced below: “26. …..........Moreover, second proviso to S.31A(2) comes into play only after “registration” and none of the Respondents have pointed out any such registration of Respondent No.4 Aghadi for said purposes. They have accepted the stand of Respondent No.3 that inquiry in relation to status of Respondents No.5 & 6 is still pending...............” (emphasis supplied by us). The relevant portion of paragraph no. 27 of the above referred judgment relied upon by Shri Ghare which is on Page No.59 of the paper book of the writ petition, is reproduced below: “27. …..............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 be registered. The procedure for such registration is contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rule, 1987...................” The relevant portion of paragraph no. 30 of the above referred judgment relied upon by Shri Ghare which is on Page No.63 of the paper book of the writ petition, is reproduced below: “30. …..............One seat remains vacant and decision about it cannot be taken as Respondent No.3 Divisional Commissioner has still not completed 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 4 as also Petitioner have to start working with Standing Committee of 15 members only & continue till the Respondent No.3 decides on the validity of change or then status of Respondents No.5 & 6....................” (emphasis supplied by us). 6. The submission as made on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor relying on paragraph Nos. 26, 27 and 30 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 is misconceived and unacceptable. The Court in paragraph no. 6. The submission as made on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor relying on paragraph Nos. 26, 27 and 30 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 is misconceived and unacceptable. The Court in paragraph no. 2 of the above referred judgment has recorded that the challenge in that writ petition was to the Resolution dated 20.03.2012 passed in the General Body Meeting of the Akola Municipal Corporation insofar as the determination of respective strength of the members representing the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi, on Standing Committee and the consequential communications thereto was concerned. 7. In Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012, Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola claimed that two Corporators viz. Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt.Madhuri Sanjay Badone were the members of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi claimed that the two Corporators viz. Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt.Madhuri Sanjay Badone were its members and both the groups claimed that the relevant strength of the two groups should be calculated by considering Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone as its members. The conclusions and the findings in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 have to be construed in this background. The attempt of Shri Ghare to pick some portions and few sentences from the judgment in support of his submissions cannot be of any help to the respondent no.1 The Mayor. Moreover, the portions emphasized by us in paragraph Nos.26 and 30 of the above referred judgment show that this Court has nowhere specifically dealt with the issue of registration of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the portion emphasized by us shows that the enquiry regarding which the Court has made observations was in respect of the status of Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt.Madhuri Sanjay Badone. 8. Shri A.M. Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that after the General Elections of the Akola Municipal Corporation were held on 16.02.2012, the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola was formed, the information was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner as required by Rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987, all the necessary documents were also submitted and the Divisional Commissioner by the communication dated 07.06.2012 informed Shri Harish Ratanlal Alimchandani that the entries were taken according to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 in the register maintained in Form IV. A copy of this communication is at Page no.66 of the Paper Book. There is another communication dated 07.06.2012 (at Page no.68 of the paper book) sent by the Divisional Commissioner to Shri Madan Bodulal Bhargad informing him that the entry in respect of the Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi (Respondent No.3 to the writ petition) is taken according to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 in the register maintained in Form IV. Similar communication dated 07.06.2012 (which is at Page no. 70 of the paper book) is sent by the Divisional Commissioner to Shri Beni S. Ganga Geniwale informing him that the entry in respect of the Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi (Respondent No.4 to the writ petition) is taken according to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 in the register maintained in Form IV. Similar communication dated 07.06.2012 (which is at Page no.71 of the paper book) is sent by the Divisional Commissioner to Smt. Manjusha Sanjay Shelke informing her that the entry in respect of Shiv Sena (Respondent No.5 to the writ petition) is taken according to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 in the register maintained in Form IV. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the document, which is at Page No.73 of the paper book, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation on 24.01.2013, which shows the details of the “Groups” or the “Aghadis”, the names of their Group Leaders, the number of their Members and the relative strength, in support of his submission that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is an Aghadi which is recognized for the purposes of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012 is in respect of the status of the two Corporators viz. Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone and the order is passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the enquiry pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012 cannot have any effect on the formation of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola. Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone and the order is passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the enquiry pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012 cannot have any effect on the formation of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the communication dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure-VIII Page No.84 of the paper book) sent to the Mayor, Akola Municipal Corporation by the Municipal Secretary to support his contention that Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is an “Aghadi” recognized by the respondent nos.1 and 2 for the purposes of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the resolution dated 22.01.2013 (Annexure-B Page 119 of the paper book) in support of his contention that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is considered as an “Aghadi” for the purposes of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act by the respondent no.1 Mayor and all other concerned. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on Paragraph no. 23 of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 in support of his submission. The relevant portion of paragraph no.23 of the above referred judgment is as follows: “23. …................We have only evaluated stand of Respondents No.1 to 4 that case of Respondents No.5 & 6 is being examined by Respondent No.3 Divisional Commissioner. It cannot be accepted that due to inability or failure or omission on part of Respondent No.3 to make entries in concerned register. Petitioner Samiti or Respondent No.4 – Aghadi were not in existence on date of first meeting i.e. on 9.03.2012. Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sadashiv Patil Vs. Vithal Teke (Supra) does not lay down law on the point of absence of registration. In facts before it, Hon'ble Apex Court while appreciating argument that rules & regulations were not supplied to Collector by aghadi while furnishing information under Rule 3, concludes that registration must in any case, be complete in the light of gazette notification & entries in register. Gazette notification is under Rule 4 while entries are made in register under Rule 5(1). Both these stages are separate. Opportunity to raise objection & of hearing is after gazette notification. Gazette notification is under Rule 4 while entries are made in register under Rule 5(1). Both these stages are separate. Opportunity to raise objection & of hearing is after gazette notification. If, while deciding such objection, Commissioner finds it necessary to drop certain names, he does so as he is satisfied about the incorrectness of the information supplied initially. Entries in Register under Rule 5 have to be as per gazette and decision on objections. Parent Act i.e. Disqualification Act does not expressly provide for such registration. In fact, registration is of information supplied by group leader about event of formation of aghadi or front which already has taken place. Aghadi or front or Samiti is therefore not coming into existence from date of such registration...................” It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the findings of this Court in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 about the formation and existence of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola operate as Res Judicata and the respondent no.1 The Mayor cannot reagitate the issue again. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in any case, the findings given by this Court in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 about the formation and existence of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola operate as Constructive Res Judicata as per explanation IV below Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Learned counsel Shri S.V. Sohoni appearing for respondent no.2 and Learned counsel Shri A.S. Jaiswal appearing for respondent nos.6 to 8 and 11 to 13, have adopted the submissions of Shri Ghare. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. In our opinion, the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 is regarding the validity of the resolution dated 20.03.2012 passed in the General Body Meeting of the Akola Municipal Corporation regarding the determination of relative strength of the members of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti and the respondent no.3 Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi on the basis of the inclusion or exclusion of Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt.Madhuri Sanjay Badone. The considerations in the above referred judgment are relating to the affiliation of Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone with one or the other group. The findings or the conclusions given in the judgment in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 does not have any bearing on the issue involved in the present writ petition. 11. The considerations in the above referred judgment are relating to the affiliation of Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone with one or the other group. The findings or the conclusions given in the judgment in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 does not have any bearing on the issue involved in the present writ petition. 11. While dealing with the preliminary objection as raised on behalf of the respondent no.1The Mayor about the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, several facts and the conduct of the respondent no.1 The Mayor in the matter are relevant. The respondent no.1 The Mayor had not taken any objection to the maintainability of Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 at the behest of Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola. The copy of the resolution passed in the Special General Meeting dated 22.01.2013 shows that the existence of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is recognized by the General Body of the Akola Municipal Corporation and the respondent no.1 The Mayor has endorsed it by putting his signature below the resolution. The Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation by the communication dated 21.03.2013 has informed the respondent no.1 The Mayor about the details of the different groups including the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola showing the number of members and their relative strength and the respondent no.1 The Mayor has not produced any document on the record to show that the details given by the Municipal Secretary of the Akola Municipal Corporation in the communication dated 21.03.2013 were not accepted by the respondent no.1 The Mayor. The abovementioned facts show that even after the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012, all the concerned including the respondent no.1 The Mayor recognized the existence of Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola. In these facts, the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola cannot be considered as an “Aghadi” as it is not registered under the provisions of the Disqualification Rules, 1987, cannot be accepted. 12. In these facts, the submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola cannot be considered as an “Aghadi” as it is not registered under the provisions of the Disqualification Rules, 1987, cannot be accepted. 12. We have held that the findings given in the judgment in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 were given while considering the claim as made in that writ petition regarding the affiliation of Shri Sanjay Babulal Badone and Smt. Madhuri Sanjay Badone with the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola or the Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi and those findings have nothing to do with the issue involved in the present writ petition. In view of this, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the findings given by this Court in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 operates as Res Judicata or Constructive Res Judicata does not arise for our consideration. 13. The submission of Shri Ghare, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, that the registration of the “Aghadi” is a sine qua non for its existence and the Divisional Commissioner having rejected the proposal for registration of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola by the order dated 28.08.2012, the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola does not exist and the petition at its behest is not maintainable is misconceived. Learned advocate Shri Ghare has not pointed out any provision under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 or the Disqualification Rules, 1987, which mandates the registration of the “Group” or the “Aghadi”. Rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 lays down that the Leader of each Municipal Party or a Zilla Parishad Party or Panchayat Samiti Party shall furnish the information to the Commissioner or as the case may be to the Collector as laid down in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987. Rule 4 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 lays down that every councillor in relation to a Municipal Party or the Zilla Parishad Party and a Member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti Party shall furnish to the Commissioner or as the case may be to the Collector, a statement of particulars and declaration in Form-III. Rule 4 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 lays down that every councillor in relation to a Municipal Party or the Zilla Parishad Party and a Member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti Party shall furnish to the Commissioner or as the case may be to the Collector, a statement of particulars and declaration in Form-III. Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 lays down that the Commissioner or as the case may be the Collector shall maintain in Form-IV, a register based on the information furnished under Rule 3 or Rule 4. 14. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that such information was submitted by Shri Harish Ratanlal Alimchandani and the Divisional Commissioner by the communication dated 07.06.2012 has informed him that the entries were taken in the register maintained in Form-IV as required by Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987. 15. Learned advocate Shri Ghare has not made any submission about this relevant fact that entries are taken by the Divisional Commissioner in the register. In our opinion, the recording of the entries in the register maintained in Form-IV under Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 is sufficient compliance and amounts to registration of the “Group” or an “Aghadi”. No provision is pointed out to us which requires any specific procedure to be followed for registration of the “Group” or an “Aghadi”. Our view is fortified by the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2012 (6) All MR 54 (Sanjay Devram Bhoir Versus Divisional Commissioner & others). In the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1426 of 2012 also, in Paragraph No.20, it is held that the registration as contemplated in the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is on the information supplied by Group Leader about event of formation of an “Aghadi” or the “Front” which already has taken place. 16. The submission of learned counsel Shri Ghare that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola cannot be considered as an “Aghadi” as its registration is rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, cannot be accepted for another reason that the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Disqualification Rules, 1987 does not give the supervisory powers to the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner cannot have any say in the matter of formation of the “Group” or an “Aghadi”. The formation of the “Group” or an “Aghadi” is a subject which is in the exclusive domain and wisdom of the political parties and the candidates, and the Divisional Commissioner cannot have any supervisory control over the political decision and wisdom of the political parties and the candidates. The Divisional Commissioner is required only to take the entries in the register maintained in Form-IV under Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 about the information given as required in Rule 3 or Rule 4 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987. If the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012 is read to mean that he has rejected the proposal for registration of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, then it will have the effect of cancelling the entries taken in the register as informed by the communication dated 07.06.2012. Learned counsel Shri Ghare has not shown us any provision either under the Act of 1986 or the Disqualification Rules, 1987, which gives power to the Divisional Commissioner to revoke or cancel the entries taken in the register maintained in Form-IV of Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 and there cannot be any such power because, as we have observed earlier, there are no supervisory powers given to the Divisional Commissioner. The powers which are given to the Divisional Commissioner or the Collector are to decide the validity of any change which has taken place in the information furnished by the Leader of a Municipal Party or a Zilla Parishad Party or a Panchayat Samiti Party and the effect of such change in the information. We reject the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor that the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola. 17. The writ petition is filed two individual members also. Learned counsel Shri Ghare has submitted that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 (individual members) are claiming the right to be nominated on the Standing Committee on the basis that they are the members of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and as the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola has no existence in law, the claim as made by the petitioner nos.2 and 3 cannot be entertained in the writ petition. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is maintainable at the behest of the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, we reject this submission on behalf of the respondent no.1 The Mayor also on the ground that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in their individual capacity can seek the relief as sought by them in the writ petition. The impugned resolution dated 29.04.2013 shows that the eight corporators, whose names are found in the resolution, are nominated by considering their claims from various political parties or as independent candidates. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have not given any reason, even in the replies filed by them before this Court for not considering the claim of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 for nomination on the Standing Committee. The oral submissions made by learned advocate Shri Ghare that the claim of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 cannot be considered as they are claiming through the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, cannot be accepted without there being any material on record in support of the submission. We hold that the writ petition is maintainable. 18. On merits, the issue which falls for reconsideration is, “Whether the Resolution No.1 passed in the Special General Meeting of the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola held on 29.04.2013 is valid and in consonance with the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act reads as under: “31A(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, 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 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 or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front. 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 or registered parties or groups or aghadi or front. The seats shall be allotted to the recognized parties or 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 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:] 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, 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 registered prepoll aghadi or front.” 19. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the impugned resolution shows that the nomination of the eight councillors on the Standing Committee is done arbitrarily and without taking into account the relative strength of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the other groups and the nomination of the members on the Standing Committee is not in proportion to the strength of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the other groups. According to the petitioners, after the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012, the membership strength of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is 24, of the respondent no.3 Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi is 33, of the respondent no.4Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi is 5, of the respondent no.5ShivSena is 8 and the Independents are 3. According to the petitioners, after the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.08.2012, the membership strength of the petitioner no.1 Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is 24, of the respondent no.3 Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi is 33, of the respondent no.4Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi is 5, of the respondent no.5ShivSena is 8 and the Independents are 3. The Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation had informed the respondent no.1The Mayor on 29.03.2013 about the different aghadis/fronts, their membership strength, their relative strength, the number of their members holding office, the number of members who retired and the number of nominations to be allotted to them but, while considering the nominations in the meeting held on 29.04.2013, none of these aspects are considered and the impugned resolution is passed nominating eight councillors in breach of the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the judgment reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 871 (Vasant Nivrutti Gite & another Versus Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik & others) in support of his submissions . Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel, also relied on the Full Bench Judgment reported in 2010(3) Mh.L.J. 465 (Jayram Tolaji Shinde & another Versus Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai & others), by which the same view is affirmed. 20. The submissions on behalf of the respondent no.1The Mayor are based on the contention that the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the other “Aghadis” and “Groups” cannot be considered as registered Aghadis or Groups as the particulars are not published in the Government Gazette. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1The Mayor that Councillor Shri Vijay Agrawal had raised objection in the General Body Meeting which was held on 06.03.2013 that unless the party or groups are registered as provided in law, their relevant strength cannot be considered while filling the vacancies in the Standing Committee. It is submitted that the legal opinion was sought in this regard but, the legal opinion as given did not solve the problem and, therefore, communications were sent by the Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and the State Government but, no response was received. It is submitted that the legal opinion was sought in this regard but, the legal opinion as given did not solve the problem and, therefore, communications were sent by the Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and the State Government but, no response was received. The respondent no.1The Mayor supported the impugned resolution by submitting that as no Aghadi or Party or Group is notified in the Government Gazette, they are not legally registered parties and, therefore, the strength of the Political parties and members who contested the General Elections was considered and accordingly eight members were nominated on the Standing Committee. 21. We have already held that there is no requirement of any separate registration of the “Aghadi” or “Group” and the requirement under Rule 5 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 is to take entry of the information furnished under Rule 3 and 4 of the Disqualification Rules, 1987 in the register maintained in Form IV and these entries have already been taken. Moreover, the General Body of the Akola Municipal Corporation and the respondent no.1The Mayor have throughout considered the existence of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. Therefore, the nominations for the eight vacancies in the Standing Committee should have been made taking into account the relative strength of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola, respondent no.3Akola Vikas Maha Aghadi, respondent no.4Akola Shahar Vikas Aghadi and respondent no.5ShivSena. In our opinion, the Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation has undertaken this exercise and informed the respondent no.1The Mayor about the relative strength of the various “Groups” or “Aghadis” by the communication dated 21.03.2013. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have not controverted the correctness of the calculations regarding relative strength as recommended by the Municipal Secretary of the Akola Municipal Corporation in the communication dated 21.03.2013. The claim as made by the petitioners for three nominations for the Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola is prima facie in consonance with the recommendations of the Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola in the communication dated 21.03.2013. The respondent nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 have not made any independent submissions and have adopted the arguments made by learned advocate Shri Ghare appearing for the respondent no.1The Mayor. The respondent nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 have not made any independent submissions and have adopted the arguments made by learned advocate Shri Ghare appearing for the respondent no.1The Mayor. The respondent nos.5, 9 and 10 have also not made any independent submissions and have adopted the submissions of Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 22. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Resolution No.1 passed in the Special General Body Meeting of the Akola Municipal Corporation on 29.04.2013 is unsustainable and has to be quashed. Consequently, the nominations of the respondent no.6 to 13 on the Standing Committee pursuant to the above referred resolution dated 29.04.2013 are quashed. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to make the nominations for the eight vacancies in the Standing Committee by taking into account the relative strength of the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola and the other “Aghadis” or “Groups” per Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act and considering the communication issued by the Municipal Secretary, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola to the respondent no.1The Mayor on 21.03.2013 (Annexure-VIII, Page84 of the Paper Book of the Writ Petition), in proportion to the strength of such “Groups” in the Corporation after consulting the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of each such Party or Group. 23. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Considering the circumstances, no orders as to costs.