AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 08/05/2026 passed by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, thereby recognizing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" of councillors elected on ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party and leader of Municipal Party in Parbhani Municipal Corporation.
In month of January, 2026, general elections to Parbhani Municipal Corporation were held for 65 seats. Petitioner and respondents No.4 to 14 contested election on ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party and came to be elected as councillors.
On 22/01/2026, meeting of elected councillors of Bhartiya Janata Party was convened for purpose of electing "Gatneta" in pursuance to provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 and Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987. According to petitioner, he was duly elected as "Gatneta" of Municipal Party. Thereafter, he submitted information in prescribed form to respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner regarding names and particulars of elected councillors together with intimation regarding his election as "Gatneta". Accordingly, respondent No.2 recorded petitioners name as "Gatneta" of Municipal Party in terms of Rule 3 of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987.
On 12/02/2026, election to post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Parbhani was held. Petitioner, being "Gatneta", issued whip to councillors of Municipal Party, which was acted upon. Thereafter, different Committees came to be constituted under provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
It is contention of petitioner that respondents No.4 to 13, who are members of Municipal Party, submitted proposal to respondent No.2 stating that respondent No.6 has been elected as leader ("Gatneta") of Municipal Party in meeting dated 08/05/2026. The said proposal was acted upon without proper verification eventually respondent No.6 was recognized as "Gatneta" of councillors elected on ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party.
Petitioner made representation to Divisional Commissioner pointing out that so-called resolution dated 08/05/2026 relied by respondents No.4 to 13 depicting election of respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" is per se illegal and without authority in law. The resolution was passed without proper notice to members of Municipal Party but respondent No.2 hurriedly acted upon same without issuing notice to petitioner, who was sought to be replaced as "Gatneta" by respondent No.6. In response thereof, respondent No.2 issued communication dated 13/05/2026 staying operation of his own order dated 08/05/2026.
Mr. P. S. Dighe, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that procedure for election and recognition of "Gatneta" is governed by provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 and Rules of 1987. Petitioner was duly elected as "Gatneta". Accordingly, his name came to be recorded in official record maintained by Divisional Commissioner. Respondents No.4 to 13 thereafter prepared fraudulent record of meeting dated 08/05/2026 showing that respondent No.6 is elected as "Gatneta" in place of petitioner. It is further submitted that said action is contrary to constitution and rules of Bhartiya Janata Party. No reasons are assigned for replacing petitioner from post of "Gatneta".
Learned Counsel further submits that alleged resolution dated 08/05/2026 was passed behind back of petitioner and same was acted upon by respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner without verifying correctness and legality of resolution before recognizing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta". At least, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to issue notice to petitioner, who was holding post of "Gatneta", before acting upon resolution dated 08/05/2026. It was expected of Divisional Commissioner to verify Rules and Regulations of political party before recognizing proposed change in leadership. Respondent No.6 had no authority to convene meeting of councillors. Therefore, proceeding of meeting dated 08/05/2026 stands vitiated by fraud and violation of Rules.
In support of his submissions, Mr. P. S. Dighe, relies upon observations of Division Bench of this Court in Mangesh s/o Sudhakar Tambe vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 735 and Bhagatram Ravalmal Balani vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 249.
Per contra, Mr. S. G. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 10, 12 and 13, supports impugned order. He would submit that in absence of any Rules governing constitution and functioning of Municipal Party or Aghadi, election and continuance of "Gatneta" would depend upon confidence of majority of elected councillors. According to him, petitioner lost confidence of majority members of Municipal Party. Consequently, in meeting dated 08/05/2026, resolution has been passed by majority, electing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" in place of petitioner. Learned Divisional Commissioner, after satisfying himself about genuineness of resolution and compliance with prescribed procedure, took note of change in official record. Petitioner, therefore, cannot object to election of respondent No.6 as "Gatneta", who has been elected by majority of councillors. In support of his contentions, he relies upon observations of Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Sopan Mehtre vs. District Collector, Ahilyanagar and others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 6218.
Having considered submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that group of councillors elected on ticket of Bhartiya Janata Party in election to Municipal Corporation, Parbhani formed Municipal Party. In meeting dated 22/01/2026, they elected petitioner as "Gatneta". However, on 08/05/2026, respondents No.4 to 13 convened meeting of elected councillors and passed resolution electing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" in place of petitioner.
Record indicates that on 06/05/2026 respondent No.7 convened meeting of Municipal Party (Bhartiya Janata Party) for election of "Gatneta" at Rajlaxmi Infra Office, Karegaon Road, Parbhani and meeting was scheduled to be held at 09.30 a.m. on 08/05/2026. Said notice appears to have been signed by nine out of twelve elected councillors. Resolution electing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" came to be passed in said meeting. Minutes of meeting shows presence of ten members. Except petitioner and Smt. Meena Sureshrao Warpudkar, all other members of Municipal Party remained present and passed resolution. Accordingly, information came to be forwarded to respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, who acted upon same and recorded change by recognizing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" in place of petitioner.
This Court finds that Municipal Party do not have any specific constitution prescribing tenure of "Gatneta" or group leader. Even provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 and Rules of 1987 do not prescribe any fixed tenure for "Gatneta". The Resolution which was passed in meeting dated 22/01/2026 thereby electing petitioner as "Gatneta" is silent about tenure for his continuance as "Gatneta".
The contents of resolution dated 22/01/2026 suggests that authority to frame, amend or alter Rules governing functioning of Municipal Party would vest in "Gatneta" or majority of members. Apparently, principle of “majority” is accepted as basis for functioning of Municipal Party. The trust and confidence of majority members is soul of democratic functioning of Municipal Party.
Although petitioner was initially elected as "Gatneta" by majority after election to Municipal Corporation, subsequently he lost confidence of majority members of Municipal Party. On 06/05/2026 nine members of Municipal Party convened meeting dated 08/05/2026 and passed resolution electing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" in place of petitioner. Respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner acted upon said communication and took note of change in official record. Petitioner could not demonstrate that resolution electing respondent No.6 as "Gatneta" was not supported by majority or that same was vitiated by fraud in any manner. Assuming that petitioner was not served with notice of meeting dated 08/05/2026, resolution passed by overwhelming majority cannot be discarded on that count alone. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that election of petitioner as "Gatneta" was coterminous with term of Municipal Corporation or for any fixed tenure.
In case of Mangesh s/o Sudhakar Tambe (supra), petitioner therein was elected as “Gatneta” of Municipal Party for fixed term of five years and before expiry of said tenure an attempt was made to replace him. In present case, no such fixed tenure was prescribed while electing petitioner as "Gatneta". Therefore, petitioner cannot derive any benefit from ratio laid down in said judgment.
So far as reliance placed on Bhagatram Ravalmal Balani (supra) is concerned, dispute therein was with regard to rival claims to post of group leader. In that backdrop, Division Bench observed that it was statutory duty of Commissioner to decide as to who was group leader out of rival claims set up before him. In present case, respondent No.6 came to be elected as "Gatneta" by majority of nine out of twelve members of Municipal Party. Except petitioner, no other member has disputed election of respondent No.6 as "Gatneta". Therefore, ratio laid down in said judgment would not assist petitioner.
In Santosh Sopan Mehtre (supra), Division Bench of this Court dealt with situation similar to present case and held that, in absence of prescribed tenure under Aghadi Rules and specific mode or procedure for removal or change of "Gatneta", change in leadership can be given effect by following same procedure by which "Gatneta" was originally elected. It has been further observed that majority is foundation of democratic functioning, trust and confidence of majority is soul of democratic set up.
In present case, respondent No.6 came to be elected by majority of members of Municipal Party by following same procedure by which petitioner was initially elected as "Gatneta". Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in action of respondent No.2 in taking note of said change.
In result, this Court finds no force in writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.