Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 792 (BOM)

Rajkumar v. Collector, Gondia

2020-07-03

AMIT B.BORKAR, R.K.DESHPANDE

body2020
JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 14-2-2020 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Collector, Gondia accepting and recognizing the election of the respondent No. 4 - Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav as the Group Leader (Gat Neta) of Gondia Shahar Parivartan Aghadi in the meeting said to have been held on 30-1-2020 on the basis of the information furnished in terms of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 (for short, "the Disqualification Rules"). The petition also challenges the notice dated 30-1-2020 issued by the Collector, Gondia calling a special meeting of the councilors of the respondent No. 3- Municipal Council, Gondia, on 15-2-2020 at 2.00 p.m. to constitute the Standing Committee and the Subject Committees by nominating and electing the councilors under Sections 63(2)(b) and 63(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act of 1956 (sic 1965)") and declaring the programme of election for that purpose. 2. The petition was filed on 15-2-2020 and we passed an order as under: "Shri Khapre, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishekh Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner, requested for urgent circulation of the matter, as the election of the Subject Committee is to be held at 2 p.m. today in the Municipal Council, Gondia. We, therefore, granted the circulation. We are informed that the caveat has already been filed by respondent No. 4, but no lawyer is engaged, upon whom the service of notice can be effected. In the absence of any lawyer being engaged, it is not possible for this Court to wait for the petitioner to serve the notice upon the respondent No. 4 before the election is held. Hence, we proceed to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 - Collector Gondia. The challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 30.01.2020 calling a meeting to hold election of the members of the Subject Committee of the Municipal Council. The meeting is scheduled to be held at 2 p.m. today. The petition also challenges the election program issued on the same day along with the order dated 14.02.2020 by which the respondent No. 4 - Sou. The meeting is scheduled to be held at 2 p.m. today. The petition also challenges the election program issued on the same day along with the order dated 14.02.2020 by which the respondent No. 4 - Sou. Lalita Pankaj Yadav is accepted by the Collector as Gat Neta of Gondia Shahar Pariwartan Aghadi, consisting of 5 members of Bahujan Samaj Party, 2 members of Shiv Sena and 1 individual. The contention raised is that on earlier occasion an attempt was made to remove the present petitioner elected as Gat Neta and the Collector rejected it. Against such order of rejection dated 08.03.2019, a writ petition was preferred by respondent No. 4 bearing Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2019, which was ultimately withdrawn on 11.02.2020, as a result of which the petitioner continues to be the Gat Neta. In the absence of any requisition and also agenda in the meeting said to have been held on 30.01.2020 removing the petitioner as Gat Neta, the Collector could not have accepted such resolution on 14.02.2020. Now, the position would be that the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 may issue whip for electing the members of the Subject Committee and the Standing Committee in the meeting scheduled to be held today at 2 p.m. Issue notice for final disposal of the matter, returnable on 25.02.2020. Learned Government Pleader waives service of notice for respondent No. 1. We permit the meetings proposed to be held on today to go on as it is. However, the outcome of such meetings shall not be given effect to until further orders of this Court. This order is also made subject to the result of this petition. Steno copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned to act upon." Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the proceedings in the meeting have gone ahead, but the outcome of such meeting has not been given effect to. All the parties are served. They have filed their replies and written notes of arguments and prayed this Court to finally decide the matter. 3. Civil Application No. 530 of 2020 filed by Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate, for intervention has already been allowed and disposed of. Civil Application No. 729 of 2020 has been filed by Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate, for intervention. The same is allowed and disposed of. 3. Civil Application No. 530 of 2020 filed by Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate, for intervention has already been allowed and disposed of. Civil Application No. 729 of 2020 has been filed by Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate, for intervention. The same is allowed and disposed of. Civil Application No. 280 of 2020 has been filed by Shri R.M. Bhangde for being joined the applicant as the party-respondent. The application is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out in the cause-title of the petition. Civil Application No. 281 of 2020 has been filed by Shri R.M. Bhangde for vacation of interim order passed by this Court on 15-2-2020. As we are finally deciding the matter, this application does not survive and the same stands disposed of as such. 4. Rule. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties through video conferencing after going through the written notes of arguments and now we proceed to decide the matter finally. Undisputed factual position: 5. The general elections of the Municipal Council, Gondia were held sometime in the month of December, 2016 and the results were declared on 9-1-2017. Total forty-three councilors were declared to be elected, out of which eight councilors, including three independent councilors, formed "Gondia Shahar Parivartan Aghadi" in the meeting held on 7-2-2017 and the petitioner - Rajkumar S/o Sampatrao Kuthe was declared to be the Group Leader of the said Aghadi. This intimation was given to the Collector, Gondia on 8-2-2017 in the form prescribed under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules. 5.1. On 31-1-2019, one Pankaj Sundarlal Yadav, who was not the councilor, issued a notice of meeting to change the Group Leader and it is said to have been held on 4-2-2017, in which the respondent No. 4 - Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav was elected as the Group Leader of the Aghadi in place of the petitioner. When the intimation was furnished to the Collector, Gondia in respect of it under Section 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules, the petitioner raised objections on 5-2-2019 and 16-2-2019. On 18-3-2019, the Collector rejected the change proposed. Consequently, the petitioner continued to be the Group Leader of the Aghadi, representing eight councilors. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2019 filed by the respondent No. 4, which remained pending. 5.2. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 - Sau. On 18-3-2019, the Collector rejected the change proposed. Consequently, the petitioner continued to be the Group Leader of the Aghadi, representing eight councilors. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2019 filed by the respondent No. 4, which remained pending. 5.2. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 - Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav that subsequently she issued a notice on 24-1-2020 calling the meeting of the Aghadi on 30-1-2020 and it was served upon the petitioner and all other members of the Aghadi to participate in the meeting. However, the petitioner, according to her, replied to the said notice on 29-1-2020 stating that the notice is illegal and remained absent. The meeting was held on 30-1-2020 in which the petitioner was removed as the Group Leader of the Aghadi by five members and the respondent No. 4 was elected as the Group Leader of the said Aghadi. The respondent No. 4 claims to have given an intimation on 30-1-2020 in respect of her election as the Gat Neta of the said Aghadi to the Collector in terms of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules. 5.3. The Collector, Gondia issued the notice dated 30-1-2020 calling a special meeting of the councilors of the Municipal Council, Gondia to be held on 15-2-2020 for the purposes of nomination and election of the members of the Standing Committee and the Subject Committees, as required by Sections 63(2)(b) and 63(3) of the Act of 1965, and declared the election programme. The respondent No. 4, who had filed Writ Petition No. 3558 of 2019, sought permission from this Court to withdraw the said writ petition and this Court passed an order on 11-2-2020, which is reproduced below "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition in view of subsequent events. A further prayer is made for keeping the questions raised in the present writ petition open for consideration in future. 2. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn and it is recorded that the questions raised in the present writ petition are kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case." 5.4. A further prayer is made for keeping the questions raised in the present writ petition open for consideration in future. 2. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn and it is recorded that the questions raised in the present writ petition are kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case." 5.4. On 14-2-2020, the Collector, Gondia, after hearing the parties concerned, passed an order accepting and recognizing the change or removal of the petitioner as the Group Leader of the Aghadi and the election of the respondent No. 4 - Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav as the Group Leader of the Aghadi in his place. Contentions of the petitioner: 6. The contention of Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocates Shri Digvijay Khapre and Shri Abhishek Shukla, appearing for the petitioner, is that in the absence of any written constitution prescribing the rules of the meeting of the said Aghadi, registered under the Disqualification Act, the general principles of the special meeting will apply. The general principles, according to him, mean issuance of notice by proper authority, incorporation of specific agenda, and following the democratic principles by which a person elected is sought to be removed. 7. According to Shri Khapre, the meeting is required to be called by a Group Leader only and for that purpose, a demand has to be made by requisition to be submitted to him by majority of the members of the Aghadi. If the Group Leader fails to call the meeting as per the requisition, the members of the said Aghadi have to apply to the Collector to fix a meeting to discuss the subject of removal of Group Leader and election of a new Group Leader. This is the due procedure of law to be followed for calling a meeting. This has not been done in the present case and, therefore, the conduct of meeting on 30-1-2020 was without any authority. 8. The further contention of Shri Khapre is that when a special requisition meeting is called to discuss the question of removal of existing Group Leader and to elect a new Group Leader, a specific agenda to that effect has to be incorporated in the notice calling a meeting so that everyone is provided an opportunity to know well in advance the matters to be discussed in such meeting. This principle of natural justice is also a part of due process of law. Inviting our attention to the notice of the meeting dated 24-1-2020, said to have been issued by the respondent No. 4, he has urged that there is no specific mention of such agenda in the notice of the meeting and, therefore, the proceedings of the meeting, even if it is held, are rendered void ab initio. 9. The Collector, Gondia, while passing the impugned order dated 14-2-2020 accepting the respondent No. 4 - Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav as the Group Leader of the Aghadi, should have seen that the petitioner was elected as the Group Leader on 7-2-2017 and intimation in respect of it was given to the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules on 8-2-2017. The name of the petitioner was proposed as the Group Leader in the meeting by the respondent No. 4 and an affidavit duly sworn by all eight members of the Aghadi stating that the petitioner is elected for a period of five years as the Leader of the Aghadi, was submitted to the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules. Once the petitioner is recognized as the Group Leader of the Aghadi, he gets a statutory right to issue a whip under Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act for the purposes of election and the order impugned illegally takes away the same. Questions for consideration: 10. Keeping in view the undisputed factual position, narrated above, the contentions raised by Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and the stand taken by the respondents, the following questions arise for our consideration: (1) Whether the election of the respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner as the Group Leader of Aghadi in the meeting held on 30-1-2020 was by democratic way following the due process of law? (2) Whether the order passed by the Collector, Gondia on 14-2-2020 accepting the change and recognizing the election of the respondent No. 4 as Group Leader in place of the petitioner, deprives the valuable right of the petitioner to issue a whip under Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act in respect of the election of the members of the Standing Committee and the Subject Committees under Sections 63(2)(b) and 63(3) of the Act of 1965? As to Question No. (1): 11. As to Question No. (1): 11. What is the democratic process and the due process of law need to be seen in the present case to answer the question No. (1). We, therefore, straightway proceed to consider the position of law laid down by the precedents as under: 11.1 In the decision of this Court in the case of Kedar Shivkumar Kale v. Digamber Shridhar Mhapsekar and others, reported in 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 77 , the Court was considering the question of removal of the Chairman of the Trust by way of no confidence motion and it was held that the manner in which the Chairman was removed is clearly without following the due procedure and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrakant Khaire v. Dr. Shantaram Kale and others, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 577 , it is held that it was not open to elect a new Chairman in the same meeting without a formal notice to all the members of the Managing Council. The Court noted that there was no notice or agenda to take the decision on the subject of removal and it was urged that it was open to the Chairman of the meeting to invite discussion on no confidence motion, as also for appointment of new Chairman in the same meeting without there being a formal notice or agenda on the subject with reference to the general business under the last item as any other subject with the permission of the Chairman. However, the same was rejected. 11.2 It was held by this Court in the case of Kedar Shivkumar Kale that it is well established position that no business should be placed on the agenda or transacted at a meeting unless it comes within the scope of the notice convening the meeting. The general business do not take within its fold item such as removal of Chairman or passing of no confidence motion or appointment of new Chairman in his place. It is further held that it is established position that under the item any other business with the permission of the chair, it is open to deal with only formal or unimportant matters, such as a resolution to pay a tradesman's bill and the like. It is further held that it is established position that under the item any other business with the permission of the chair, it is open to deal with only formal or unimportant matters, such as a resolution to pay a tradesman's bill and the like. The business of removal of the Chairman by passing a no confidence motion or appointment of a new Chairman, cannot be passed under the heading "general business", or so to say with the permission of the chair, which obviously is of crucial importance as it concerns the constitution of the Managing Council and also has significant import on the interest of the trust. 11.3 In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others, reported in AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 298, relied upon by Shri Khapre, after considering the provisions of the Disqualification Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is held in Paras 12 and 13 as under: "12. The definition of the term 'leader' very clearly shows that where a municipal party is an aghadi, its leader has to be chosen by the aghadi or front. Necessarily, any change in the leader of the municipal party is to be effected by the aghadi and not by any outsider. Once the Rules provide for the election of the group leader, it has to be done in that manner only and not in any other manner, even when there is change of the leader. The change of leader has to be in the same democratic process of injunction, in the absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned." (Emphasis supplied). "13. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and duly recognized by the Divisional Commissioner, it becomes a municipal party in terms of Section 2(i) of the Act. Once original political parties form a municipal party by way of an aghadi, for all purposes, the group leader is chosen by the municipal party (aghadi) only. Rules do not provide for nomination of group leader. Similarly, the group leader of the aghadi can be changed only by the group and not by one of the political parties, big or small, belonging to the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is not imposed: leader is elected. Rules do not provide for nomination of group leader. Similarly, the group leader of the aghadi can be changed only by the group and not by one of the political parties, big or small, belonging to the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is not imposed: leader is elected. Once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, the group leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very same process of the election in the group, in the absence of any rules to the contra. No doubt, the Nationalist Congress Party has 17 members in the aghadi (group). That does not mean that the said party can impose a group leader in the aghadi. Imposition of a group leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules. It is always open to the original political parties to have their respective leaders in the aghadi. However, as far as group leader is concerned, he has to be elected by the aghadi (group)." (Emphasis supplied). It is held by the Apex Court that the change of leader has to be in the same democratic process of induction, in the absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It is further held that if the Rules do not provide for nomination of group leader, it can be changed only by the group and not by one of the political parties, big or small, belonging to the Aghadi. It is further held that in a democracy, a leader is not imposed; leader is elected. Once the birth of a leader in a group is by way of election by the group, the group leader thus elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very same process of the election in the group, in the absence of any rules to the contra. Imposition of a group leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules. Imposition of a group leader otherwise than by the democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and certainly it is in violation of the Rules. 11.4 In the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and others, reported in AIR 2015 SC 1960 , the Court was dealing with the question as to whether in the absence of specific provision of removal by no confidence in the Act, Rules or even Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society, the Chairperson/elected office bearer can be removed by a motion of no confidence, and while dealing with this question, the Court holds that it is for the Court to read the democratic principles into the Act or Rules or Bye-laws and in case there is no express provision, such office bearer is liable to be removed in the event of loss of confidence by following the same procedure by which he was elected to the office. 12. The principles of law, which are to be kept in mind to call and conduct a meeting to remove a Group Leader/Gat Neta of the Aghadi or front and to elect another in his place with its intimation to the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules with a view to deprive or enjoy, as the case may be, the rights and privileges under the provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act in a democratic way by following due process of law in relation to any meeting of the Municipal Council can be briefly stated as under: (1) Every elected Group Leader/Gat Neta enjoys a privilege or prerogative of calling meetings of the Aghadi or front and has a valuable statutory right to issue a whip, which has to be mandatorily followed by all the members of such Aghadi or front, to whom he represents, and failure to follow such whip without the reasons, as are available in law, disqualifies a member violating the whip. (2) If there are any rules, regulations, bye-laws or constitution of such Aghadi or front prescribing the authority and the period of calling the meeting, issuance of notice of meeting containing agenda, date, time and place of such meeting, its service upon the member of such Aghadi or front, etc., to elect a Group Leader, the same will have to be followed. (3) In the absence of any rules, regulations, bye-laws or constitution of the Aghadi or front to call and conduct a meeting to elect a Group Leader, the Aghadi or front itself may device and adopt any democratic procedure for that purpose. (4) The Group Leader so elected has to furnish information in Form-I along with the names and designations of the members of such Aghadi or front to the Collector, as required by Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules. (5) Unless the position of Group Leader/Gat Neta elected and recognized by the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules becomes vacant either by removal, resignation, death, etc., no one else from the Aghadi or front to which he represents can be elected to occupy such position. (6) In the absence of any rules, regulations, bye-laws or constitution of the Aghadi or front - (a) the removal and election of the new Group Leader in place of existing, if it is to be done simultaneously in one meeting, can only be in a special requisition meeting, for which the demand is to be made to the existing Group Leader, by majority of members of the Aghadi or front. (b) Upon receipt of such requisition, it is the prerogative as well as the obligation of the Group Leader to issue a notice calling a special requisition meeting under his own signature to discuss the subject of removal and election of the new Group Leader and to take decision on it, within a period stated in the requisition, which should be reasonable to serve a notice upon the members of the Aghadi or front, and (c) it is upon failure to call a special meeting within a period stipulated in the requisition with specific agenda of removal and election giving the date, time and place of such meeting by a Group Leader, that any of the requisitionists can call such a meeting within a period reasonable to serve such notice upon each member of the Aghadi or front. (7) The business of removal of the Group Leader/Gat Neta by passing a no confidence motion or election of new Group Leader of the Aghadi or front in his place cannot be done under the subject heading "any other business with the permission of the chair", as it takes away statutory rights and privileges conferred upon the Group Leader/Gat Neta, sought to be removed or replaced. (8) In the absence of provision for removal of Group Leader/Gat Neta and electing another in his place to represent Aghadi or front, the Court will have to read the democratic principles, as stated above, into the Act and the Rules. (9) The Court cannot interfere in the rights of the members of the Aghadi or front to remove Group Leader/Gat Neta and to elect any other member in his place, if it is found that this is done in a democratic way by following due process of law. 13. In the present case, undisputedly, there are no rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Aghadi and, therefore, we have to see as to whether the petitioner, who was undisputedly elected as the Group Leader in the meeting of the Aghadi held on 7-2-2017 with an intimation to the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules and continued as such till 4-2-2019, was removed in the same mode and manner in which he was elected as the Group Leader of the Aghadi. Obviously, the burden is upon the respondent No. 4-Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav and other five members of the Aghadi, who claimed to have removed the petitioner as the Group Leader of the Aghadi and elected the respondent No. 4 in his place, to justify the action by producing the record and demonstrating the manner in which the petitioner was elected and removed, as they are supposed to be in lawful custody of it. 14. Keeping in view the position of law laid down, we now turn to the notice dated 24-1-2020 calling a meeting of the Aghadi on 30-1-2020 under the signature of the respondent No. 4. The notice also bears the signature of four other councilors out of eight councilors constituting Aghadi. 14. Keeping in view the position of law laid down, we now turn to the notice dated 24-1-2020 calling a meeting of the Aghadi on 30-1-2020 under the signature of the respondent No. 4. The notice also bears the signature of four other councilors out of eight councilors constituting Aghadi. In our view, it was necessary for the respondent No. 4 and other four councilors to have produced on record, the request said to have been made to the petitioner to call the requisition meeting within a stipulated period and that he failed to call such meeting. The petitioner being the Group Leader was entitled to issue notice of the meeting under his own signature and in the absence of any material to substantiate the plea that the petitioner did not call or failed to call the meeting within stipulated period, it was not permissible for the respondent No. 4 to have issued notice. The notice was without any authority. Further, neither we find that the notice includes the agenda either to remove the petitioner as the Group Leader or to elect new Group Leader of the Aghadi in his place, nor any of the respondents could point out to us, though a specific query was made. This, we find, is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kedar Shivkumar Kale, cited supra, in which a motion of no confidence was quashed and set aside on the ground of failure to include such subject as agenda in the notice of meeting. We, therefore, hold that the meeting of the Aghadi conducted on 30-1-2020 was illegal. 15. We now turn to the minutes of the meeting of the Aghadi, said to have been held on 30-1-2020, placed on record. We find that the meeting was attended by five members of the Aghadi as against the strength of eight members. On the general subject of discussing the affairs of the Aghadi, it is decided in the meeting that the petitioner as the Group Leader has failed to call the meeting of the Aghadi in spite of repeated requests and has adopted the attitude of non-cooperation. It is further resolved that in view of this, it is necessary to elect new Group Leader and accordingly the name of the respondent No. 4 was proposed and she was declared to be elected as the Group Leader. It is further resolved that in view of this, it is necessary to elect new Group Leader and accordingly the name of the respondent No. 4 was proposed and she was declared to be elected as the Group Leader. She was further authorized to give intimation of it to the Collector, as required by Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules, to call a meeting and to issue a whip to the members of the Aghadi. 16. We have gone through the minutes of the meeting dated 30-1-2020 of the Aghadi, placed on record. We could not find any subject in the agenda or any discussion or the decision in the minutes of the meeting, to remove the petitioner from the position as the Group Leader of the Aghadi. We, therefore, put a specific question to all the learned counsels appearing for the parties to point out to us any such agenda or decision. None of the learned counsels could point out to us the subject of removal of the petitioner as the Group Leader of the Aghadi in the agenda or its discussion and decision in the meeting. 17. Faced with the aforesaid situation, a contention is raised by the contesting respondents that once a new Group Leader is elected, the existing Group Leader stands automatically removed and there is no need to include such subject either as agenda or to have any discussion or decision thereon in the meeting. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid argument for four reasons: (a) Once the election of the Group Leader is intimated to the Collector under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules, such Group Leader becomes entitled to all the rights and privileges available to him under the Disqualification Act and the Rules framed thereunder till he is removed or resigned from such post. (b) In order to deprive such elected Group Leader of his rights and privileges, it can only be by including the subject of removal in the agenda and having discussion and decision thereon in the meeting of the Aghadi or front so as to adhere to the principles of natural justice. (b) In order to deprive such elected Group Leader of his rights and privileges, it can only be by including the subject of removal in the agenda and having discussion and decision thereon in the meeting of the Aghadi or front so as to adhere to the principles of natural justice. (c) In the absence of any vacancy in the position of a Group Leader either by way of removal, resignation or death, neither any other member of the Aghadi or front can be elected as the Group Leader nor the Collector can accept such change under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Disqualification Rules. (d) To elect any other person without removing the existing Group Leader, would create a chaotic situation in the matter, attracting disqualification for disobedience of the whip, if any, issued under Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act by the two Group Leaders of the same Aghadi or front. We, therefore, hold that in the absence of any such change of Group Leader in the notice of the meeting dated 24-1-2020 or any discussion and decision on the question of removal of the Group Leader of the Aghadi in the meeting held on 30-1-2020, the election of the respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner cannot be treated as valid in the eyes of law. 18. What we find is that the respondent No. 4 or other four members of the Aghadi, who passed the resolution dated 30-1-2020, have failed to discharge their burden to explain the procedure by which the petitioner was elected as the Group Leader on 7-2-2017, particularly in the absence of there being any rules, regulations, constitution or bye-laws of the Aghadi. There is nothing placed on record to substantiate that in spite of repeated requests, the petitioner failed to call the meeting or that he has shown the attitude of non-cooperation. They have failed to establish that the petitioner was actually removed as the Group Leader of the Aghadi in the meeting dated 30-1-2020 or that his alleged removal was in a democratic way, that is the manner in which the petitioner was elected as the Group Leader of the Aghadi. We, therefore, find that neither the alleged removal of the petitioner as the Group Leader nor the election of the respondent No. 4 in his place was by way of democratic process by following due procedure of law. We, therefore, find that neither the alleged removal of the petitioner as the Group Leader nor the election of the respondent No. 4 in his place was by way of democratic process by following due procedure of law. The question No. (1) is, therefore, answered accordingly. As to Question No. (2): 19. The petitioner has valuable statutory right conferred by Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act to issue a whip for the purposes of election of the members of the Standing Committee and the Subject Committees under Sections 63(2)(b) and 63(3) of the Act of 1965. The respondent No. 1 - Collector, without even looking into all the aforesaid aspects, passed an order dated 14-2-2020 recognizing the respondent No. 4 as the Group Leader of the Aghadi, which has deprived the petitioner of his valuable statutory right. The order is not based upon any valid and relevant consideration of law and facts. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained and it will have to be quashed and set aside by holding that the petitioner had statutory right to issue a whip in respect of the nomination and election held on 15-2-2020 as per the notice dated 30-1-2020 issued by the Collector, Gondia. The question No. (2) is thus answered accordingly. 20. In view of the aforesaid position, the petition needs to be allowed by setting aside the notice dated 30-1-2020 issued by the respondent No. 1 - Collector, Gondia, calling a meeting on 15-2-2020 for the purposes of nomination and election, as required by Sections 63(2)(b) and 63 of the Act of 1965 along with the order dated 14-2-2020, impugned in this petition. The further proceedings have not taken place and that is what is informed to us, as per the interim order passed by this Court on 15-2-2020. We, therefore, hold that the further proceedings of the meeting conducted by the Collector on 15-2-2020 would not at all survive and hence cannot be permitted to be given effect to. 21. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Civil Application No. 280 of 2020, has urged that the petitioner belongs to Bhartiya Janata Party and is nominated and not elected in the meeting held on 15-2-2020. 21. Shri Bhangde, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Civil Application No. 280 of 2020, has urged that the petitioner belongs to Bhartiya Janata Party and is nominated and not elected in the meeting held on 15-2-2020. According to him, the nomination done in the said meeting cannot be quashed and set aside, as there is no question of the petitioner exercising rights and privileges under Section 3(1)(b) of the Disqualification Act in respect of the nominated members. He, therefore, submits that the proceedings dated 15-2-2020 in respect of nomination cannot be disturbed. It is not possible for us to accept such argument. We are not sure of the consequences and the extent of the rights and privileges to be enjoyed by the petitioner. Neither this aspect is raised by applicant in the application, nor this relief is claimed. As a matter of fact, the nominations from Aghadi are at the instance of the respondent No. 4. It is not possible to segregate the issue. It may happen that the entire complexion may change and we have made the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-2-2020 to be subject to the result of this petition. Once the petition is to be allowed, the entire proceedings of the meeting dated 15-2-2020 would not survive. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 22. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order is passed as under: (1) The order dated 14-2-2020 passed by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Gondia accepting and recognizing the election of the respondent No. 4-Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav as the Group Leader/Gat Neta of "Gondia Shahar Parivartan Aghadi" in the meeting said to have been held on 30-1-2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. (2) The notice of the meeting dated 30-1-2020 issued by the Collector, Gondia calling a special meeting of the councilors of the respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council, Gondia on 15-2-2020 at 2.00 p.m. to constitute the Standing Committee and the Subject Committees under Sections 63(2)(b) and 63(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, is also quashed and set aside. Consequently, the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-2-2020 would not survive. 23. We have noted that though the respondent No. 4-Sau. Consequently, the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-2-2020 would not survive. 23. We have noted that though the respondent No. 4-Sau. Lalita W/o Pankaj Yadav filed a caveat before this Court, she did not take steps to appear or engage any lawyer for conducting the matter before this Court on 15-2-2020. This is nothing but a mischief and, therefore, we impose the costs of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] upon her, to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today; failing which, the respondent No. 1-Collector, Gondia shall take steps to recover the said amount from the respondent No. 4 and to pay it to the petitioner. 24. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 25. At this stage, Shri Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, submits that the effect and operation of this judgment and order be stayed so as to enable the respondent No. 4 to approach the Apex Court. The prayer is opposed by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find that any case is made out for staying the effect and operation of this judgment and order. The prayer of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is, therefore, rejected.