JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks relief to quash and set aside the impugned communication issued by respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati dated 7.4.2017 treating respondent no.6 as member of respondent no.5-Shiv Sena Paksh and consequently holding that strength of respondent no.5 party is only of eight members. 3. The general elections to the Municipal Corporation, Akola were held. The results were declared on 23.3.2017 wherein 49 candidates belonging to Bhartiya Janta Party, 33 from Indian National Congress, 5 from Rastravadi Congress, 8 from Shiv Sena, 3 from Bhartiya Republic Party, one from MIM, one independent i.e. respondent no.6 were elected. The five Corporators of Rashtravadi party were members from Bhartiya Republic party and one from MIM formed a Lokshai Aghadi, Akola. The petitioner as well as respondent no.5 Shiv Sena submitted the information as per Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 to respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The information furnished on behalf of respondent no.5 showed the name of eight members/Corporators elected from respondent no.5 party. Later-on on 24.3.2017 respondent no.5 submitted another information to respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner regarding the formation of Shiv Sena Aghadi Akola Mahanagar Palika which included eight Cooperators elected from Shiv Sena and one independent Cooperator i.e. respondent no.6. Respondent no.5 requested to respondent no.3 to register the aghadi as per the provisions under section 5 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member Disqualification Act. The petitioner has challenged the said action on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 terming as illegal and bad in law. According to the petitioner, a person elected as an independent candidate cannot join party. If such independent council joins a party, then he incurs the disqualification as per the provisions under section 5 of the Act. It is stated that such type of merger of independent candidate with political party is impermissible in the eye of law and, therefore, respondent no.6 incurs disqualification. It is stated that respondent no.6 has not submitted an information as per Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Member Disqualification Rules. The petitioner raised objection before respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner. It is stated that such type of merger of independent candidate with political party is impermissible in the eye of law and, therefore, respondent no.6 incurs disqualification. It is stated that respondent no.6 has not submitted an information as per Rule 3(1)(a) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Member Disqualification Rules. The petitioner raised objection before respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner. Respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector, Akola to verify the information submitted on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 as well as the petitioner. The respondent no.4-Collector, Akola did not consider the objection raised by the petitioner. Respondent no.4 submitted its report to respondent no.3 stating therein that the objection raised by petitioner is not sustainable. In these circumstances, petitioner challenged the action on the part of respondent no.3-Divisional Commissioner, including the name of respondent no.6 in respondent no.5 party stating that it is illegal and bad in law. 4. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for petitioner, vehemently argued that the group leader of petitioner aghadi lodged objection before respondent no.3 that respondent no.6 cannot be included while registering the aghadi of respondent no.5 under Section 5 of Disqualification Act, as respondent no.6 is elected as an independent councilor. According to Mr. Ghare, in view of the bar contemplated under Section 3 (2) of Disqualification Act, respondent no.6 stands disqualified having join the party or aghadi which has not sponsored him for the elections of Corporation. It is stated that the objection filed by petitioner is totally ignored by respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order dated 7.4.2017. It was pointed out that during the pendency of the petition, respondent nos.1 and 2 were trying to fill the post of nominated councilor. Petitioner was entitled for one post of nominated councilor as the petitioner was consisting of 9 members. However, due to registration of respondent no.5, including respondent no.6 as its member, the strength of respondent no.5 aghadi is increased from 8 to 9 members. Hence, their shall be tie between petitioner aghadi and respondent no.5 aghadi. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner and respondent no.5 are claiming one post of nominated councilor under section 5 (2) (b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Significantly this court has directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to keep one post amongst nominated councilors vacant during the pendency of writ petition. 5. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner and respondent no.5 are claiming one post of nominated councilor under section 5 (2) (b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Significantly this court has directed respondent nos.1 and 2 to keep one post amongst nominated councilors vacant during the pendency of writ petition. 5. It is contended by learned counsel Shri Ghare that the second proviso of Section 31 (a) of Municipal Corporation Act gives protection for the formation of respondent no.5 aghadi within one month from the date of publication of results of general elections. The application which is filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 before respondent no.3 on 24.3.2017 indicates that they wish to register aghadi under Section 5 of the Disqualification Act, as respondent nos.5 and 6 have merged to form an independent aghadi called “Shiv Sena Aghadi Akola Corporation, Akola”. It was requested by respondent nos.5 and 6 to respondent no.3 to register their merger and also to register a new aghadi. It was stated that the said merger is not proper to form a new aghadi. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani and another .vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 794 . It was pointed out that in paras 26 and 28 of the said judgment, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such registration may result in consequence of rendering some of the councilors disqualifications for continuing as councilors. The Hon'ble Apex Court has left the issue open which is raised by the petitioner in the present petition. It was urged that the object of proviso to section 31-A is to give an opportunity to the independent councilor to get himself appointed any standing committee or subject committee by joining any aghadi. The section contemplate appointment of standing committee and subject committee of the elected councilor on the basis of the relative strength of the registered parties or recognized parties or groups. There was no scope for an independent candidate to get himself appointed on those committees because the relative strength of recognized parties or groups shall always be more than the individual councilors. For this reason of getting effective representation of standing committee or subject committee to an independent councilor, explanation is carved out in second proviso of Section 31-A from the provisions of Disqualification Act. 6. For this reason of getting effective representation of standing committee or subject committee to an independent councilor, explanation is carved out in second proviso of Section 31-A from the provisions of Disqualification Act. 6. It is stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indrani's case has categorically observed that the formation of aghadi contemplated under Section 31-A is restricted to that section alone. The said representation or formation of aghadi cannot be used in the elections of President/Vice President or election of nominated members. Learned counsel contended that Section 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications & Appointment of Nominated Councilors) Rules, 2012 restricts the relative strength of recognized or registered party or group and it does not extend to an independent councilor being part of such recognized or registered party or group. Thus, according to Mr. Ghare, while nominating the remaining one post of councilor under Section 5 (2) (b) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, the respondent no.6 cannot be considered as a member of respondent no.5 aghadi. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel Mrs. Sirpurkar for respondent no.5 contended that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the formation of aghadi between respondent nos.5 and 6 as the petitioner aghadi has already lost its strength of eight members in view of the fact that Bhartiya Republican Party, a member amongst alliance of petitioner with its three Corporators have already withdrawn support and has taken necessary action as per law. It is stated that the petitioner itself is at a strength of six members which dis-entitles the petitioner to any challenge to the formation of respondent no.5 aghadi. It is thus submitted that the aghadi of the petitioner enjoying merely six members cannot claim any precedent over respondent no.5, particularly when respondent no.6 Shiv-Sena apart from respondent no.5 is considered by itself, has eight elected Corporators. It is further submitted that respondent no.5 has formed itself into an aghadi with eight members of Shiv Sena and one independently elected Corporator i.e. respondent no.6. The aghadi-respondent no.5 is not hit by the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act or Rules in view of the specific provisions under the second proviso of Section 31-A (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. The aghadi-respondent no.5 is not hit by the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act or Rules in view of the specific provisions under the second proviso of Section 31-A (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. According to the learned counsel, there is no substance in the petitioners' contention that respondent no.6 has been rendered disqualification in terms of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, as he has joined the aghadi with respondent no.5, thereby loosing his independent status. The learned counsel contended that under the provisions of Section 31-A Sub-Clause (2), the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 was passed in the year 1986 with the object of curbing detection and antidemocratic acts of elected members. The specific object was to provide for disqualification of Members of Local Authority. The Section 3 (2) provides that elected councilor, who is independently elected, shall be disqualified if he joins any political party or aghadi after the election. It was submitted that Section 31-A was added to Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act in the year 2007 with the specific object to provide proportionate representation to elected counselors on various committees of the Corporation. Such a proportionate representation was required by election as well as by nomination on different committees which were designed to be as merely on the proportion to the strength of such authorities or groups in the Corporation. 8. Learned counsel placed reliance upon (i) Jayram Tolaji Shinde and another .vs. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and others, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 465 , (ii) Jeevan Chandrabhan Idnani and another .vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 794 (iii) Sanjay Devram Bhoir .vs. Divisional Commissioner and others, reported in 2012 (6) ALL MR 54 and (iv) Shah Faruq Shabir and others .vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and others, reported in 2016 (5) ALL MR 786. 9. So far as the contention of respondent nos.1 and 3 is concerned, it is stated the communication dated 07.04.2017 is issued by respondent no.3 after following due process of law and as per the provisions of the Act. 10. On considering the rival contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary to go through the provisions of Section 31-A of the Act. Section 31-A contemplates that: "31A. 10. On considering the rival contentions of the respective parties, it is necessary to go through the provisions of Section 31-A of the Act. Section 31-A contemplates that: "31A. Appointment by nomination on Committees to be by proportional representation: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or bylaws, made thereunder, in the case of the following Committees, except where it is provided by this Act, that the appointment of a Councilor to any Committee shall be by virtue of his holding any office, appointment of Councilor to these Committees, whether in regular or casual vacancies, shall be made by the Corporation by Nominating Councilors 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 Councilors to 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 sub section 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 Councilors not belonging to any such party or group may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986, 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.” (3) If any question arises as regards the number of Councilors to be nominated on behalf of such party or group, the decision of the Corporation shall be final.” 11. It is strongly argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the second proviso of Section 31-A of the Act will have a precedence since it specifically contemplates that the provision shall have an effect under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. Section 3 (2) : An elected Councillor, or as the case may be, member who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for being a Councillor, or as the case may be, a member if he joins any political party or aghadi or front after such election. Section 5 of the Disqualification Act reads as under: 5(1) A councillor or a member shall not be disqualified under sub-section (1) of section 3 where his original political party or aghadi or front merges with another political party or aghadi or front and he claims that he and any other members of his original political party or aghadi or front- (a) have become members of such other political party, or aghadi or front or as the case may be, of a new political party formed by such merger ; or (b) have not accepted the merger and opted to function as a separate group, and from the time of such merger, such other political party or new political party or aghadi or front or group, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the political party or aghadi or front to which he belongs for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 3 and to be original political party or aghadi or front for the purpose of this sub-section. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1)m, the merger of the original political party or aghadi or front of a councillor, or as the case may be, a member shall be deemed to have taken place if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the member of municipal party, Zilla Parishad party, or as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti party, concerned, have agreed to such merger.” 12. In this context, it would be advantageous to refer the observations of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Faruq Shabir vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and others, reported in 2016(5) ALL MR 786. In this context, it would be advantageous to refer the observations of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Faruq Shabir vs. Govindrao Ramu Vasave and others, reported in 2016(5) ALL MR 786. Paragraphs 46, 49 to 52, 54, 55 and 58 held as under: “46. The provisions of Section 63(2B) are pari materia to Section 31A(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. Section 63 of the Municipalities Act is included in Chapter III which relates to duties and functions of the Council and the Municipal Executive. Part (4) of Chapter III refers to 'Committees' which includes Sections 62 to 73. Section 63 relates to constitution of Subjects Committees of 'A' and 'B' Class Councils. Whereas, sub-section (2B) of Section 63 prescribes procedure for nominating councillors. It is laid down that in nominating councillors, the Collector shall take into account the relative strength of recognised 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 Council after consulting the leader of each such party or group. The methodology of calculating relative strength of the parties is provided in first proviso, whereas, second proviso provides relaxation to the recognised parties or registered parties or groups, or elected councillor not belonging to any such party or group may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Disqualification Act, to form aghadi or front within one month from the date of notification of election results and, on its registration as aghadi or front, the provisions of the Disqualification Act shall apply to the members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a pre-poll aghadi or front.” “49. An identical provision finds place in Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which has fallen for interpretation in the matter of Vasant Nivrutti Gite & another Vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik, 2007 (4) ) MhLJ 871. The statement appended to the Ordinance, which provided for identical provision, is reproduced in para 5 of the judgment, which reads thus: "3. Municipal Corporation of City of Nashik, 2007 (4) ) MhLJ 871. The statement appended to the Ordinance, which provided for identical provision, is reproduced in para 5 of the judgment, which reads thus: "3. To ensure that all the recognised parties and groups in the Corporation are adequately represented in the Committees constituted under the Corporations Acts, the Government considers it expedient to amend these Acts to provide for the nomination of members of the Committees in proportion to the strength of the political parties of groups in the Corporation." It is recorded by the Division Bench in para 5 of the judgment thus, "....... It is open to the recognised parties or registered parties or independent councillors, not belonging to any such party or group, notwithstanding anything contained in the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 within a period of one month from the date of notification of election results to form an aghadi or front and on its registration, the provision of the said Act shall apply to the members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a registered pre poll aghadi or front. Opening words of the second proviso to Section 63 (2B) read as under: "for the purpose of deciding the relative strength of the recognised parties or registered parties or groups under this sub-section ..." 50. Thus, the scope and ambit of second proviso is limited to the extent of and only for the purpose of nomination of a councillors on the Committees. These words in the second proviso leave no room for doubt that it is only for the limited purpose of enabling such aghadi to secure proper representation on various categories of committees specified in Section 63. 51. As has been stated above, the aghadi or front in terms of second proviso to Section 63 (2B) is confined only to formation of Subjects Committees and has no relevance in the context of election to the office of President and Vice President, since special meeting is required to be convened for constitution of Subjects Committees only after the elections to the office of President and Vice President. 52. The Disqualification Act is enacted with an object for providing disqualification of members on the ground of defection and its structure is based on the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The principle generalia specialibus non-derogant is applicable in the present case. 52. The Disqualification Act is enacted with an object for providing disqualification of members on the ground of defection and its structure is based on the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The principle generalia specialibus non-derogant is applicable in the present case. The municipal law is a general law relating to administration of Municipalities, including Maharashtra Municipalities Act, whereas, Disqualification Act, is a special law dealing with the subject of disqualification of members of the local authorities on the grounds specified therein. There are certain distinguishing features which can be serialised as below: Distinguishing Features: The component original political parties or formation of aghadi or front, as permitted under the second proviso to Section 63(2B), the status of members or councillors belonging to original parties or independent councillors is not lost and their original status do not merge with aghadi or front nor such aghadi or front bring into existence a new political party within meaning of Section 2(a) of the Disqualification Act. Such aghadi within contemplation of second proviso to Section 63(2B) does not amount to merger of component parties or individual members within meaning of Section 5 of the Disqualification Act. The purpose of the second proviso to Section 63(2B) is not to nullify or to dilute the rigour and/or vigour of the substantive legislation i.e. the Disqualification Act, 1986. It is not intended to reduce the provisions of Section 3 of Disqualification Act to a Dead Letter. 13. Full Bench of this Court has reported the following para from the judgment in case of Jeevan Idnani and another vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan and others, reported in (2012)2 SCC 794 . “27. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 31-A(2) of the Municipal Corporations Act which is a later expression of the will of the sovereign, in contrast to the stipulation as contained under Sections 2(a) and 3(2) of the Disqualification Act, would enable the formation of postelectoral aghadis or fronts. However, such a formation is only meant for a limited purpose of enabling such aghadis to secure better representation in the various categories of the Committees specified under Section 31-A. The component parties or individual independent Councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a given front/aghadi do not lose their political identity and merge into the aghadi/front or bring into existence a new political party. There is no merger such as the one contemplated under Section 5 of the Disqualification Act. 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 Rules, 1987." 54. In paragraph no.28 of the judgment, although the Supreme Court has observed that once such an aghadi is registered under Section 31-A (2) by a legal fiction created under the proviso, such an aghadi is treated as if it were a pre-poll aghadi or front and the provisions of Disqualification Act apply to the members of such post-poll aghadi. However, the Supreme Court has refused to examine legal consequences of such a declaration. 55. On conjoint reading of paragraphs no.26 and 27 of the judgment in Jeevan Idnani's matter (supra), an irresistible conclusion has to be drawn that the formation of an aghadi under the provisions of second proviso to Section 31-A(2) is only for the limited purpose of enabling such aghadis to secure better representation in the various categories of the Committees specified under Section 31-A. The component parties or independent councillors, as the case may be, in the case of a given front/aghadi do not lose their political identity and merge into aghadi or front or bring into existence a new political party. There is no merger, as contemplated under Section 5 of the Disqualification Act. It is, thus, clear that formation of such an aghadi or front is for the purposes of securing better representation in the various categories of the Committees specified therein and it cannot be equated with an aghadi or front under Section 2(a) for the purposes of invocation of the provisions of the Disqualification Act.” 58. It shall be noted that there is no inconsistency or repugnancy in the provisions of Disqualification Act as against provisions of second proviso to Section 63(2B) of the Municipalities Act. Both the provisos operate in different field. Even otherwise, Disqualification Act is a special enactment governing the field of Disqualification of elected representatives of the local authority. Whereas, the Municipalities Act is a general law providing for the constitution, administration and powers of Municipalities. Both the provisos operate in different field. Even otherwise, Disqualification Act is a special enactment governing the field of Disqualification of elected representatives of the local authority. Whereas, the Municipalities Act is a general law providing for the constitution, administration and powers of Municipalities. It also shall be taken note of that apart from provisions of the Disqualification Act, the Municipal Act itself provides for Disqualification under Section 63(1), 44 and 45. Thus, provisions of the Disqualification Act are in addition and not in derogation of Municipalities Act. Disqualification Act is structured on the lines of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution by 52nd Amendment, 1985 and occupies a limited field concerning defection of the elected representatives and provides for remedial measures and penalties. The immunity under second proviso is an immunity for limited purpose providing for stability to the aghadi/front or else it would have resulted in creating instability on account of defection. It shall also have to be considered that when the field is occupied by a special legislation enacted by a competent legislature and the same legislature subsequently enacts another law which is of a general nature, the general legislation cannot be taken to have displaced the special law which is in operation unless there is a specific provision made in the subsequent general law to that effect. In such a situation, the special law which occupies the field does not get displaced merely by implication. The legislature, being the same, would be aware while enacting the subsequent general legislation, that it has already enacted a special law and it is that law which occupies the field, therefore, if its intention is to displace that special law, it would specifically say so. In this respect, reference can be made to a judgment in the case of Narendra Kantilal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Appeal) Bombay and others, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 704 . In paragraph no.31 of the judgment, it is observed thus: "31. In this respect, reference can be made to a judgment in the case of Narendra Kantilal Shah Vs. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Appeal) Bombay and others, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 704 . In paragraph no.31 of the judgment, it is observed thus: "31. Now, so far as the provisions of section 84 of the 2002 Act are concerned, it is clear from what has been observed above that when the 1993 Act was enacted as also in 1999 when that Act became operative in the region with which we are concerned, though 1984 Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act was in force, section 74 of that Act which provided remedy was inoperative having been stayed by this Court, therefore the provisions of the 1993 Act will occupy the field and therefore when the 2002 Act was enacted by the Parliament. The 2002 Act being essentially a general statute as compared to the 1993 Act, unless the 2002 Act makes a special exception, the provisions of section 84 of the 2002 Act will not operate to oust the 1993 Act from the field which is occupied by it. It may be, incidentally, mentioned here that so far sub-section (1) of section 84 of the 2002 Act is concerned, it is identical to sub-section (1) of section 74 of the 1984 Act. Had section 74 of the 1984 Act been in force in 1999, it is 1993 Act which would have operated being a special law. In our opinion, therefore, the enactment of section 84 in the 2002 Act will not make any material difference. When the field is occupied by a special legislation enacted by a competent legislature and the same legislature subsequently enacts another law which is of general nature, the general legislation cannot be taken to have displaced the special law which is in operation unless there is a specific provision made in the subsequent general law to that effect. In such a situation, the special law which occupies the field does not get displaced merely by implication. The legislature being the same would be aware, while enacting the subsequent general legislation that it has already enacted a special law and it is that law which occupies the field, therefore, if it is its intention to displace that special law it would specifically say so. The legislature being the same would be aware, while enacting the subsequent general legislation that it has already enacted a special law and it is that law which occupies the field, therefore, if it is its intention to displace that special law it would specifically say so. In these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of any specific provision in the 2002 Act, excluding the operation of the 1993 Act which was in operation, in relation to Bank registered under the 2002 Act, it is the 1993 Act and not the 2002 Act which would operate." 14. The above-said case-law approves the formation of post-poll Aghadi. 15. In the aforesaid case, the question before this Court was the defection in the post-poll Aghadi. This Court has considered whether there could be a post-poll Aghadi permissible, in view of the Disqualification Act, 1986. This Court has also considered the provisions under section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and its second proviso. This Court has come to the conclusion that the Disqualification Act does not prohibit formation of such post-poll Aghadi as harmonious construction between second proviso and Disqualification Act permits the formation of post-poll Aghadi. 16. In case of Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola vs. Akola Municipal Corporation and others, reported in 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 874 , there was a challenge before this Court with regard to the defection of the member of Aghadi who had joined the petitioner-Aghadi, but had later declared their disassociation with the respondent no.4-Aghadi. This Court held on considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jeevan Idnani’s case as under : “We find that said proviso does not contemplate a split in Aghadi or Front already formed and it only enables merger of politically independent entitles for securing desired representation in Standing Committee. Hence, even otherwise in present facts immunity under proviso to section 31-A (2) of Corporation Act is/was not available to respondents no.5 and 6 or to respondent no.4 on 20.3.2012. Not only this but due to section 3(2) of the Disqualification Act, they may have incurred disqualification and might not be councilors of respondent no.1 Municipal Corporation after 3.3.2012 or 16.3.2012 due to section 3(2) of the Disqualification Act. Not only this but due to section 3(2) of the Disqualification Act, they may have incurred disqualification and might not be councilors of respondent no.1 Municipal Corporation after 3.3.2012 or 16.3.2012 due to section 3(2) of the Disqualification Act. Whether they have incurred such disqualification or not, can be and needs to be inquired into by respondent no.3 Divisional Commissioner as part of pending inquiry before him” 17. Thus, all the above-said case laws have good bearing on the present case. The formation of post-poll Aghadi between respondent nos.5 and 6 is permissible, in view of the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, under its non-obstante clause. 18. In the instant case there is formation of aghadi between respondent no.5 and respondent no.6 which is challenged by the petitioner. The provision under Disqualification Act does not attract as there is no further action on the part of respondent no.5 and respondent no.6. Hence, there is no question of quashing the impugned communication dated 7.4.2017. 19. The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is about wrongful inclusion of Respondent No. 6 as part of Respondent No. 5 vide order dated 07.04.2017 and counting him as 9th member of that Municipal Party for the purposes of nomination in terms of Section 5(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act). 20. In Section 31-A (2) of the 1949 Act, the relative strength of recognized parties like respondent No. 5 can be worked out for the purposes of nominating the Councillors on Committees. Second proviso to Section 31-A(2) points out how relative strength of recognized parties or registered parties is to be worked out. Thus, only for the purposes of calculating “relative strength” it allows independent Councillors, not belonging to any recognized or registered party, to form the Aghadi or Front and a limited recognition is granted to such new Aghadi or Front after its registration under the provisions of Disqualification Act, 1986, as if it is registered as pre-poll Aghadi or Front. This scheme is not in dispute. The petitioner, however, claims that this recognition or permission cannot be used for any other purpose. Here, the said other purpose as pointed out is nomination under Section 5(2)(b) of the 1949 Act. The aspect is dealt with by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. This scheme is not in dispute. The petitioner, however, claims that this recognition or permission cannot be used for any other purpose. Here, the said other purpose as pointed out is nomination under Section 5(2)(b) of the 1949 Act. The aspect is dealt with by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012. Under Rule 3, five persons are to be nominated by the Corporation. Under Rule 5, the Municipal Commissioner, after consulting Leader of House, Leader of Opposition and Leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the “relative strength” of such parties and groups, has to recommend the names of suitable persons for nomination. Thus, this nomination again envisages calculation of relative strength. 21. Second proviso to Section 31-A (2) does not restrict itself to formation of four committees mentioned in sub-section (1). On the contrary, the said proviso explains concept of relative strength for the purposes of 1949 Act. Thus, even for the purposes of nomination under Section 5(2)(b), second proviso and scheme stipulated therein becomes relevant. The association of Respondent No. 6 with Respondent No. 5, for the purposes of determining relative strength under Section 5(2)(b), therefore, cannot be questioned by the petitioner. 22. However, if such association is being used for any other purpose and that purpose is not recognized as legal or valid in the scheme of Disqualification Act, 1986, appropriate cognizance thereof can be taken by respondent No. 3. Petition shows that the proceedings in this respect are pending before respondent No. 3. We, therefore, refrain from observing anything more about those proceedings. We direct respondent No.3 to expedite the same and take final decision about it in next four months. Rule accordingly. No cost. 23. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the civil applications stand disposed of.