SUNIL HARIBHAU KALE Vs. AVINASH GULABRAO MARDIKAR AND ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 2080 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 20, 2015
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).
The appeal hence is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2080 OF 2015
(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 26218/2014)
Sunil Haribhau Kale ... Appellant (s)
Versus
Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others ... Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
Election to the Amravati Municipal Corporation was held on 16.02.2012. Of
the total 87 Councillors, the Nationalist Congress Party with 17, Muslim
League with 2, R.P.I. with 1, Samajwadi Party with 1 and 2 Independents
formed an aghadi (group) and elected the first respondent as their group
leader (Gat Neta). On 06.03.2012, the 23 members submitted the following
application to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati for approval of the
alliance and registration of the group leader:
"... The newly elected Corporators of the Nationalist Congress Party Nos. 1
to 17 along with other newly elected Corporators, totaling to 23, have
unanimously elected Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as a Group Leader of the
Nationalist Congress Party. The List of the names of the Corporators from
the Nationalist Congress Party, in Form - I, under Rule 31(1)(A) is
submitted herewith. Similarly, the affidavit duly signed by the honourable
Corporators, in Form - III, under Rule 4(1) is also annexed herewith.
The strength of our Alliance is the Corporators of the Nationalist
Congress Party numbering 1 to 17 and that of 6 others, totaling to 23.
Hence, it is requested to kindly register and approve this Alliance as a
"Nationalist Congress Party Front. ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
The affidavit filed by the members of the group, reads as follows:
"...We, all the newly elected members of the Amravati Municipal
Corporation, Amravati, do hereby inform you that, we have formed
Nationalist Congress Party Front; that we have the total strength of 23
members; that we have unanimously elected Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar,
the newly elected member from Ward No.26(B), Benoda Ward as a Group Leader
of our Nationalist Congress Party Front; that the said Group Leader Shri
Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar has hereby given his consent to work as a Leader
of our group; and that we do hereby further undertake to bind ourselves to
elect, vote and support the members proposed and nominated by our group
leader Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as a Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the
President of the Standing Committee, and the Members and the Chair Persons
of all the Committees; that we will not remain absent at the time of the
voting of the said election; and that we are well aware of the fact that
under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Member
Disqualification Act, it is binding upon us to obey the orders that would
be passed by our group leader Shri Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar as regards the
proceedings of the assembly of the Amravati Municipal Council, otherwise,
the action can be taken against us under the provision of Rule 3(5) of the
said Act for the infringement of such orders. ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
The request was granted and, by order dated 11.04.2012, the group was
recognized and the first respondent was registered as the group leader.
Seeking a change of the leader, the General Secretary of the Nationalist
Congress Party, on 22.03.2014, addressed the following letter to the
Divisional Commissioner, relevant port of which reads as follows:
"Subject:- Nomination of the Group Leader of the alliance of Nationalist
Congress Party in Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati.
Res / Sir,
The Honourable Shri Bhashkarraoji Jadhao, the President, Maharashtra
Regional Nationalist Congress Party has been pleased to instruct that Shri
Sunil Haribhau Kale be nominated as a Group Leader of the alliance of the
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in Amravati Municipal Corporation,
Amravati; and that the group under his leadership only be approved of.
Hence, it is requested to take the necessary action, accordingly.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Shivajirao Garje.
To,
The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 16.06.2014, registered the
appellant herein as the group leader based on the letter of the Secretary
of the Nationalist Congress Party. The relevant portion of the order reads
as follows:
"... It appears that from the letter of Shri Shivajirao Garje appointment
of Shri Sunil Kale has been made as Group Leader of the Party in Amravati
Municipal Corporation. There is a prevailing system of appointing group
leaders/parted on the elected groups of all political parties by the
political parties themselves. Under these circumstances giving approval to
the appointment of Shri Sunil Kale on the post of Group Leader appears to
be correct.
Hence by way of rejecting the application of the applicant Name of Shri
Sunil Haribhau Kale is being registered as Group Leader of Rashtravadi
Congress Party in Amravati Municipal Corporation. ..."
(Emphasis supplied)
The first respondent challenged the order before the High Court. By the
impugned judgment dated 22.08.2014, the High Court allowed the Writ
Petition and quashed the order. The High Court took the view that the
General Secretary of one of the political parties forming the aghadi
(group), was not competent to make a request to the Divisional Commissioner
to register change of the group leader and that the Divisional Commissioner
acted wholly without jurisdiction in registering the change as requested by
one of the political parties.
Aggrieved, the appeal.
Heard the learned counsels appearing on both sides.
Section 2(a) defining "aghadi", Section 2(i) defining "municipal party" and
Section 2(j) defining "original political party", of the Maharashtra Local
Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') read as follows:
"2(a) "aghadi" or "front" means a group of persons who have formed
themselves into a party for the purpose of setting up candidates for
election to a local authority;"
xxx xxx xxx
"2(i) "municipal party", in relation to the councillor belonging to any
political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the Explanation to
Section 3, means, -
in the case of a councillor of a Municipal Corporation, the group
consisting of all councillors of the Municipal Corporation for the time
being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance
with the said Explanation;
in the case of a councillor of a Municipal Council, the group consisting of
all the councillors of the Municipal Council for the time being belonging
to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said
Explanation;"
"2(j) "original political party", in relation to a councillor or a
member, means the political party to which he belongs for the purposes of
sub-section (1) of section 3;"
(Emphasis supplied)
Rule 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification
Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') defines a 'leader to a
municipal party (group leader/Gat Neta), relevant portion of which reads as
follows:
"2(b) "Form" means the form appended to these rules;
[b-1](i) "Leader in relation to a municipal party" means a Councillor
chosen by each political party, or aghadi or front in the Municipal
Corporation or as the case may be in the Municipal Council as its leader
and includes any other Councillor of such party or aghadi or front
authorized 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 the purposes
of these rules."
(Emphasis supplied)
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 induction, in
the absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned.
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. 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).
Thus, although for a few other different reasons as well, apart from those
sounded by the High Court in the impugned order, we agree with the view
taken by the High Court. The appeal hence is dismissed. The interim order
dated 05.09.2014 is vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
February 20, 2015.
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
[for judgment]
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26218/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/08/2014 in WP
No. 2772/2014 passed by the High Court Of Bombay)
SUNIL HARIBHAU KALE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AVINASH GULABRAO MARDIKAR AND ORS Respondent(s)
Date : 20/02/2015 This petition was called on for judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv.
Mr. Milind Vashanav, Adv. for
M/s. Lambat & Associates
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv.
Mr. A.S. Raja, Adv.
Mr. Suhas Kadam, Adv. for
M/s Lemax Lawyers & Co.
Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv.
Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
Appeal is dismissed in terms of signed reportable judgment. No
costs.
(INDU POKHRIYAL) (PARDEEP KUMAR)
COURT MASTER AR-cum-PS
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
10
For the Latest Updates
Join Now