Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 699 (BOM)

Sangeeta v. State of Maharashtra

2021-03-30

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI

body2021
JUDGMENT Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage. 2. The political fraction amongst the Aghadi has reached this Court. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 06.01.2020, whereby the District Collector has approved respondent No.3 as Gatneta of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samity Party. 4. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 4(i) According to the petitioner, she was elected as a Gatneta / Group Leader of the Aghadi and same was registered and the District Collector has approved the petitioner as Gatneta vide his letter dated 08.03.2017. The election of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti was declared and meeting was scheduled on 07.01.2020. The petitioner being a Group Leader / Gatneta issued a whip to members of her party and also informed to Block Development Officer, Shrirampur. 4(ii) The petitioner came to know that respondent No.3 posing herself as a Gatneta has also issued a whip. After getting the knowledge, the petitioner made enquiry with the office of District Collector, Ahmednagar and received documents. The petitioner came to know that on 06.01.2020, the District Collector, Ahmednagar has approved respondent No.3 - Dr. Vandana Dnayaneshar Murkute as a Gatneta / Group Leader and accordingly informed to the Block Development Officer. 4(iii) The elections of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur was held on 07.01.2020. The petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur. Respondent No.3 has initiated the proceeding of disqualification against the petitioner on the ground that she has violated the whip issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner has also filed a disqualification proceeding against respondent No.3 to 5 and now both the disqualification proceedings are pending before the District Collector at Ahmednagar. 5. Heard Mr. S.S. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the following documents: (i) The impugned order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 06.01.2020. (ii) Copies of the disqualification proceedings No.1 of 2020 and 2 of 2020 pending before the District Collector, Ahmednagar. (iii) Copy of compliant filed by the petitioner with Shrirampur Police Station on 11.01.2020. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the following documents: (i) The impugned order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 06.01.2020. (ii) Copies of the disqualification proceedings No.1 of 2020 and 2 of 2020 pending before the District Collector, Ahmednagar. (iii) Copy of compliant filed by the petitioner with Shrirampur Police Station on 11.01.2020. (iv) Copy of the letter along with Resolution submitted by respondent No.3 to District Collector on 06.01.2020. (v) Copy of the letter addressed to the Returning Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur. (vi) Copy of the letter dated 08.03.2017. (vii) Copy of the proposal to publish the elected members in the official gazette addressed to the District Collector, Ahemdangar. Submissions of the Advocate for the Petitioner 6. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was elected as Gatneta / Group Leader of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur for a term of five years. Bye-laws to that effect were registered with the Collector as required under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 and Rules thereunder. The said bye-laws were never amended. The petitioner was holding the position as Gatneta / Group Leader and she has issued a whip to other members of the Aghadi for the ensuing election of the Chairman scheduled on 07.01.2020. The whip was also properly served on respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and also published in the news paper. The information about whip issued by the petitioner was also given to the Block Development Officer, Shrirampur. The respondent No.3 does not hold the post of Gatneta / Group Leader of the Aghadi for the Indian National Congress Party, Shrirampur. 7. The respondent No.3 has no authority to make any changes for the post of Gatneta without amending the bye-laws. The respondent No.3 moved an application on 06.01.2020 along with the Resolution of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur dated 04.01.2020, whereby the Group Leader was changed. The information was given to the District Collector on 06.01.2020. On the very day, the District Collector has accepted the proposal and approved respondent No.3 as Gatneta / Group Leader and intimation was given to the Block Development Officer vide letter dated 06.01.2020. The elections for the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur was held on 07.01.2020. The petitioner was elected as a Chairman. On the very day, the District Collector has accepted the proposal and approved respondent No.3 as Gatneta / Group Leader and intimation was given to the Block Development Officer vide letter dated 06.01.2020. The elections for the post of Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur was held on 07.01.2020. The petitioner was elected as a Chairman. The petitioner was already Group Leader and all the proceedings of this group was registered with the District Collector and same was approved. Without making any change in the memorandum, the District President of Indian National Congress, has no right to change the Gatneta for which the registration is already made as well as the memorandum already approved by the Collector in the year 2017. 8. Mr. Thombre submitted that the District President of Indian National Congress has no authority or power to change the Group Leader. Even then, in this case, meeting was held on 04.01.2020, wherein the Group leader came to be changed. Mr. Thombre submitted that the petitioner was elected as a Group Leader when Mr. Jayant Sasane was the District President of Indian National Congress. The Petitioner was elected as a Group Leader for five years and as per the memorandum, if any change needs to be made that has to be in consultation with Mr. Jayant Sasane, District President of Indian National Congress Party, who is no more and therefore, Group Leader can not be changed. The Collector has not considered all the aspects while giving approval to respondent No.3 as Gatneta. The Collector has accorded the approval in a mechanical manner while passing the order dated 06.01.2020 without recording any reasons. The impugned order is contrary to rule 3(4) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the following stock of citations. (I) Mangesh Sudhakar Tambe Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 5 MhLJ 735 . (II) The decision of the Division Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2014 dated 22.08.2014. (III) The decision of the Division Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.936 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020 Submissions of the Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 10. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. (II) The decision of the Division Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2014 dated 22.08.2014. (III) The decision of the Division Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.936 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020 Submissions of the Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 10. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that the points raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition would be gone into in the pending disqualification proceeding under Section 3 and 7 of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Disqualification Act, 1986 and Rules, 1987. He submitted that in view of the Resolution as well as Rules and Bye-laws applicable to the present set of facts, the Gatneta can be changed with permission of District President of Indian National Congress Party. He submitted that, if the Rules and Bye-laws are silent in respect of term of the Gatneta in that eventuality the general principle adopted in the democratic set up needs to be followed. He submitted that as per the Resolution dated 01.03.2017, necessary procedure is followed including submission of necessary documents and proposal as well as convening meeting for the election of Gatneta. 11. He submitted that the petitioner has breached the trust of the people at large and the Indian National Congress Party and joined opposite group for political ambition. The petitioner has joined opposite group Shrirampur Taluka Vikas Maha Aghadi only with an intention to have post of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti. There were complaints against the present petitioner in respect of anti party activities. The petitioner landed herself in trouble. The Aghadi of Indian National Congress for Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur has taken a conscious decision to change the Gatneta in view of anti party activities of the petitioner. Accordingly, meeting was convened, which was presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, President of District Congress Committee, Ahmednagar regarding change of Gatneta. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have given letter to the President District Congress Committee dated 19.12.2019. On 04.01.2020, the meeting was convened, wherein the Resolution came to be passed to change the Gatneta of Indian National Congress Party, Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur. The intimation was also given to the petitioner, but she remained absent. Respondent No.3 was selected as a Gatneta in the meeting held on 04.01.2020, which was presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, President of Indian National Congress Committee, Ahmednagar. The intimation was also given to the petitioner, but she remained absent. Respondent No.3 was selected as a Gatneta in the meeting held on 04.01.2020, which was presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, President of Indian National Congress Committee, Ahmednagar. Accordingly, the application was given to the District Collector on 06.01.2020 with copy of Resolution and the Collector has accorded approval. There is no legal defect in the decision taken by the District Collector. 12. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 strenuously argued that leader of Aghadi has to be selected by Aghadi. Any change in leader is to be effected by Aghadi collectively. In the present case, Gatneta / Group Leader has been changed by way of majority in the meeting held on 04.01.2020. He submitted that both sides have filed disqualification proceedings against each other and there is no need to go into that aspect. According to Mr. Deshmukh the facts of the case in Mangesh Sudhakar Tambe (supra) are quite different from the facts of present case and not applicable to this set of facts. He submitted that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 13. To buttress the argument, Mr. Deshmukh has relied upon the following stock of citations. (I) Sunil Haribhau Kale Vs. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others, (2015) 3 AIRBomR 141. (II) Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi Vs. Sharad Namdeo Pawar and others, (2013) 6 MhLJ 505 . 14. Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State echoed the argument advanced by Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 15. We have considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. 16. The scope of this petition is very much narrow. The challenge in this petition is the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 06.01.2020, whereby he accorded the approval to respondent No.3 as Gatneta / Group Leader of Indian National Congress, Panchayat Samiti Party, Shrirampur. The petitioner and respondent No.3 as well have filed disqualification proceedings against each other under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act 1986 and Rules thereunder. Both the disqualification proceedings are pending before the District Collector,Ahmednagar. We have to see, whether the impugned order passed by the District Collector dated 06.01.2020 is ex facie, incorrect and illegal. The petitioner and respondent No.3 as well have filed disqualification proceedings against each other under the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act 1986 and Rules thereunder. Both the disqualification proceedings are pending before the District Collector,Ahmednagar. We have to see, whether the impugned order passed by the District Collector dated 06.01.2020 is ex facie, incorrect and illegal. We are not sitting as an appellate Court and therefore, the scope under 226 of the Constitution of India is very much slim while assessing the impugned order. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view. The High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot make a roaring enquiry and rope in all sorts of issues. The extra ordinary power under Article 226 is to be invoked only where circumstances are exceptional and do warrant the exercise of such powers. 17. On studying the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that political scenario of Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur is concerned, it is divided in to two compartments. Four members got elected from Indian National Congress Party and four members as a independent candidates. So far as those four independent candidates are concerned, they seem to have formulated their Gatneta namely "Shrirampur Taluka Vikas Maha Aghadi" and selected their Gatneta Shri Dipak Shivram Patare. Whereas, the petitioner was selected on 06.03.2017 as Gatneta of Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party. The bye-laws to that effect were registered with the Collector. 18. The center of dispute between the parties is about change of Gatneta. 19. According to the stand of the petitioner, she has been elected as a Gatneta of the Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party for a term of five years. She can not be changed as Gatneta without amending the bye-laws. Whereas, it is the stand of respondent No.3 that the petitioner has started anti party activities. The petitioner was not convening the meetings as such, three members of the Aghadi including respondent No.3 issued a letter to the President, District Congress Party, Ahmednagar to call the meeting regarding change of Gatneta. Whereas, it is the stand of respondent No.3 that the petitioner has started anti party activities. The petitioner was not convening the meetings as such, three members of the Aghadi including respondent No.3 issued a letter to the President, District Congress Party, Ahmednagar to call the meeting regarding change of Gatneta. Accordingly, meeting was convened on 04.01.2020 presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, President, District Congress Party, wherein Gatneta came to be changed by majority. Respondent No.3 is elected as Gatneta in the said Resolution dated 04.01.2020. It is subsequently approved by the District Collector and the same is under attack. 20. Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 provides definition of leader relating the Panchayat Samiti Party, which reads thus: "(ii) "Leader in relation to a Panchayat Samiti party" means a member chosen by each political party or aghadi or front in Panchayat Samiti as its leader and includes any other member of such party or aghadi or front authorised by it to act in the absence of the leader as, or discharge the functions of the leader of such party or aghadi or front for purpose of these rules." The petitioner was elected as Gatneta unanimously for Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party in view of Resolution passed in the meeting dated 01.03.2017 presided over by Shri Jayant Sasane (now no more), District President, Indian National Congress Committee, Ahmednagar. The information was given to that effect to the District Collector, Ahmednagar by the petitioner vide letter dated 08.03.2017 along with copy of Resolution and other documents. The District Collector, Ahmednagar has taken necessary entry to that effect about selection of Gatneta in name of the Aghadi Indian National Congress, Shrirampur (Panchayat Samiti Party). The term of the Gatneta was for five years. On going through the bye-laws and Rules of the Aghadi registered with the Collector office, it is noticed by us that both are silent about the change of Gatneta in particular circumstances or given situation. But the Resolution passed by the Aghadi and the minutes of that meeting dated 01.03.2017, which are on record makes provision about the change of Gatneta. But the Resolution passed by the Aghadi and the minutes of that meeting dated 01.03.2017, which are on record makes provision about the change of Gatneta. Resolution No.3(b) provides that, in case, it is decided to change Gatneta / Group Leader, all the rights to that effect would vest with the District President of Indian national Congress Party Shri Jayant Sasane including moving the proposal to District Collector for intimation regarding change of the Gatneta. The petitioner is party to the said Resolution. Thus there are no rules regarding change of the Gatneta, but the minutes of the meeting of the Aghadi dated 01.03.02017 makes a provision to change the Gatneta and all the powers are vested with the District President of Indian National Congress. 21. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that Shri Jayant Sasane, District President of Indian National Congress Party, Ahmedngar is no more. As such, in absence of any specific provision in the bye-laws and the Rules of the Aghadi, the petitioner is entitled to retain the post of Gatneta for a period of five years. We do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the petitioner. The powers for change of Gatneta are assigned to a person who holds the position of the District President of Indian National Congress Party and it can not be termed as a right of persona, but it is a right of persona designata. It appears that existing president of Ahmednagar District Congress Party has issued a notice of meeting dated 26.12.2019 for meeting of the Aghadi on 04.01.2021 at 11.00 a.m. at Suyoug Mangal Karyalaya, Shivaji Road, Shrirampur. The subjects on the agneda were, (i) to change Gatneta / party leader of Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Pary, (ii) selection of Gatneta / Group Leader of Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchyat Samiti Party, (iii) any other urgent subject. 22. The notice of meeting seems to be duly served upon the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as a members of the Aghadi. Accordingly, meeting was held on 04.01.2020, presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President of Indian National Congress Party, Ahmednagar. The said meeting was attended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner alone seems to have remained absent. 3 to 5 as a members of the Aghadi. Accordingly, meeting was held on 04.01.2020, presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President of Indian National Congress Party, Ahmednagar. The said meeting was attended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner alone seems to have remained absent. In the said meeting, the decision was taken to remove the petitioner from the post of Gatneta in view of her anti party activities and other reasons. In the said meeting, unanimous decision was taken to select respondent No.3 / Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as Gatneta / Group Leader for Indian National Congress, Panchayat Samiti Party, Shrirampur. The minutes were signed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. and Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President of Indian National Congress Party, Ahmednagar. The authority to submit the proposal regarding the change of Gatneta was also given to Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President, Indian National Congress Party and respondent No.3 - Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute. Accordingly, the intimation was given to the District Collector, Ahmednagar by the Indian National Congress Party, Shrirampur on 06.01.2020 about change of Gatneta. On the same day, the District Collector, Ahmednagr has accepted the change and granted the approval to the change of Gatneta namely respondent No.3 - Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute. The District Collector has also informed to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shrirampur vide letter dated 06.01.2020 about change of Gatnera. On going through the Resolution passed by the Aghadi and the minutes of the meeting dated 06.01.2020, it would be clear that by majority, the decision to change the Gatneta is passed. That meeting was convened by the District President of Indian National Congress Party, which holds the authority regarding the change of Gatneta. 23. As pointed out earlier, the Rules and bye-laws are silent regarding the change of the Gatneta. The question poses what would be the appropriate course and procedure to change the Gatneta in case situation arises as like present one. In this context, reliance can be placed in case of Sunil Haribhau Kale Vs. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others, (2015) 11 SCC 403 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others, (2015) 11 SCC 403 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. It is further held that, 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). 24. Having regard to the legal position made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Haribhau Kale (supra), in the present case, the bye-laws and Rules are silent regarding the change of Gatneta. The democratic way to change Gatneta was by way of majority decision by the same group, which has earlier selected its Gatneta. In the present case, the petitioner was elected as a Gatneta unanimously by Resolution dated 01.03.2017; wherein, provision is made to change the Gatneta and the powers are vested with the District President of the Indian National Congress Party. It appears that in tune with the Resolution No.3(b) dated 01.03.2017 existing President of the Indian National Congress Party has called the meeting on 04.01.2020, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were intimated about the meeting. But the petitioner seems to have remained absent for the said meeting held on 04.01.2020. Whereas, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have attended the meeting. In the said meeting, resolution was passed to change the Gatneta. It is unanimously decided by all the members of the Aghadi except petitioner to remove the petitioner from the post of Gatneta. It is further decided to select respondent No.3 - Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as a Gatneta of the Aghadi. That meeting was presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President of the Indian National Congress Party, Ahmednagar. The decision regarding change of Gatneta of the Aghadi of Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party is taken in democratic way. It is further decided to select respondent No.3 - Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute as a Gatneta of the Aghadi. That meeting was presided over by Shri Balasaheb Salunke, District President of the Indian National Congress Party, Ahmednagar. The decision regarding change of Gatneta of the Aghadi of Indian National Congress, Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party is taken in democratic way. The Group members have right to change the Gatneta when the Gatneta has lost the confidence of the members and the Aghadi. It is not the case that the majority is still with the petitioner to retain the post of Gatneta. On the contrary, the majority is with respondent No.3 to hold the post of Gatneta in view of Resolution passed by the members of the Aghadi on 06.01.2020. 25. We have also gone through the citation in case of Mangesh Sudhakr Tambe (supra) heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the cited case, the question was raised, whether the Gatneta or leader can be changed inspite of specific provision that first Gatneta or leader will continue till the next election. In the said case, it was observed that the bye-laws contained a specific clause that Gatneta will continue till next election and unless the bye-laws are amended the Gatneta could not be changed in the midst of the term. It was also observed in the said case that meeting was not held with proper and adequate notice. The notice received by the petitioner gives two different dates of scheduled meeting. No sufficient opportunity was given to attend the meeting and take part in the same. Due to which, the members remained absent at the time of meeting. By considering all these aspects, the Division Bench has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Collector granting approval to the change of Gatneta. However, the facts of the case on hand are distinguishable. In the case on hand, bye-laws and Rules nowhere contained a specific provision that Gatneta will continue for full term or next election of the Aghadi. But the Resolution No.3(b) passed on 01.03.2017 does provide for change of Gatneta. The District President of Indian National Congress has convened a meeting on 04.01.2020 by giving prior notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 with details of agenda. But the Resolution No.3(b) passed on 01.03.2017 does provide for change of Gatneta. The District President of Indian National Congress has convened a meeting on 04.01.2020 by giving prior notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 with details of agenda. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not aware about such meeting or no prior notice was given to her. As such, citation in case of Mangesh Tambe (supra) is not any way helpful to the petitioner. 26. We have also gone though the decisions of the Division Bench at Nagpur in writ petition No.2772 of 2014 (Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others) and writ petition No.936 of 2020 (Rajkumar Vs. Collector, Gondia and others). Both the decisions are not any way applicable to to the present facts of the case. 27. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has referred to the citation in case of Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi (supra). On going through the same, it is noticed by us that disqualification proceeding was initiated under Section 3(1)(a) (b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Disqualification Act, 1986 and Rules, 1987. The Collector has decided the proceeding and that was challenged before the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal. Hear, the question of change of Gatneta and the approval thereto at the hands of the Collector is under challenge. In view of distinguishable facts, the citation in case of Gajanan Subhashrao Suryawanshi (supra) is not any way helpful to the contesting respondents. 28. In case on hand, Gatneta / Group Leader of the Aghadi seems to have been changed by the same group, which has earlier elected the petitioner as a Gatneta. By the same way, respondent No.3 has been elected as a Gatneta / Group Leader in absence of any bye-laws and Rules. 29. On examination of the impugned communication / order of the learned District Collector, Ahmednagar granting approval to the change of Gatneta / Group Leader of Indian National Congress, Panchayat Samiti Party, Shrirampur, we do no see any legal error. No case is made out to interfere in the impugned communication / order. The case on hand seems to be a conflict within the Aghadi. The petitioner seems to be on one side and remaining three members of the Aghadi are on other side. 30. No case is made out to interfere in the impugned communication / order. The case on hand seems to be a conflict within the Aghadi. The petitioner seems to be on one side and remaining three members of the Aghadi are on other side. 30. In view of the facts presented in the present case before us, we do not feel it appropriate to enter into the political overtones to exercise our writ jurisdiction. The petition must fail. ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 31. At this stage Mr. Thombre the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of interim relief. Mr. Deshmukh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 opposes the same on the ground that now only one year's term remains. Considering the fact that the interim relief was operating, we continue the interim order passed by this Court for further period of one week from today. 32. Needless to state that after lapse of one week, the interim relief granted by this Court shall come to an end.