Bombay High Court
PRAMOD NARAYAN TITIRMAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR CHIE SEC. URBAN DEV. DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the nomination of Mr Pramod Narayan Titirmare is valid, while the nominations of Mr Shailesh Toluram Meshram and Mr Hitesh Dilip Chopkar are invalid as they breach Section 63(2B), thus the impugned communications are set aside only insofar as they affect Titirmare and upheld for the other two, requiring a fresh nomination process.
Summary
The petitioners challenged letters dated 11‑Feb‑2026 and 12‑Feb‑2026 that set aside their appointments as nominated councillors of Tumsar Municipal Council. The dispute centered on whether the nominations complied with Section 63(2B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, which requires allocation of nominated seats in proportion to the relative strength of recognised parties or groups. The Court examined the calculation of relative strength for four groups and found that only three groups (Gat 1, 2 and 3) were entitled to nominations, while Gat 4 (Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi) with a strength of 0.46 was not. Accordingly, the nomination of Mr Pramod Narayan Titirmare (belonging to Gat 3) was upheld, but the nominations of Mr Shailesh Toluram Meshram and Mr Hitesh Dilip Chopkar (both belonging to Gat 4) were held invalid. The Court set aside the impugned communications to the extent they affected Titirmare’s nomination and upheld them for the other two, directing a fresh nomination process in compliance with the statutory formula. The writ petitions were disposed accordingly.
Issues considered
- The letters dated 11‑Feb‑2026 and 12‑Feb‑2026 setting aside the nominated councillors' appointments are legally valid or not.
- Whether the nomination process complied with Section 63(2B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act regarding relative strength.
- Whether the President of Tumsar Municipal Council exceeded his powers by allocating nominated seats contrary to the statutory formula.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief such as quashing the letters, mandamus for Gazette publication, and declaration of validity of their nominations.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- nominated councillor
- relative strength
- municipal council
- Section 63(2B)
- appointment of nominated councillors
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- Maharashtra municipal law
Judgment
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3755 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2026
Shailesh Toluram Meshram
Aged-40 years, Occ.; Business,
Having address at : Azad Nagar,
Tumsar, Tal: Tumsar, Dist:
Bhandara – 441912 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department, Having its
official address at:
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, having his
Office address at: Old Secretary
Building, Samaj Kalyan Office road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.
3. District Collector Bhandara,
Having his official address at:
Room No.17, Second Floor, Minority
Hostel Building, Muslim Library Chouk,
Bhandara, Maharashtra - 441904.
4. Tumsar Municipal Council,
Through its President, having
Its official address at: Gandhi Nagar,
Near Tehsil office, Tumsar - 441 912. ...Respondents
AND
Page 1 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3761 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026
Pramod Narayan Titirmare
Aged-49 years, Occ.; Business,
Having address at : Shriram Nagar,
Tumsar, Tal: Tumsar, Dist:
Bhandara – 441912 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Having its official address at:
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, having his
Office address at: Old Secretary
Building, Samaj Kalyan Office road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.
3. District Collector Bhandara,
Having his official address at:
Room No.17, Second Floor, Minority
Hostel Building, Muslim Library Chouk,
Bhandara, Maharashtra - 441904.
4. Tumsar Municipal Council,
Through its President, having
Its official address at: Gandhi Nagar,
Near Tehsil office, Tumsar - 441 912. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST)NO. 16159 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026
Abhishek Jagdish Karemore ...Applicant
In The matter between:
Page 2 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
Pramod Narayan Titirmare … Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
_______
Mr. Abhijeet Joshi i/b. Mr. Shantanu Patil, for Petitioner in both WPs.
Smt. Neha S. Bhide GP, a/w. Shri. O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. a/w.
Smt. P.N.Diwan, AGP, for Respondent in both Wps.
Mr. Rushikesh Kekane, for Applicant in IAST/16159/2026 In WP/2787/26.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 22nd JUNE 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER : AARTI SATHE, J )
1. These are two Writ Petitions which raise a challenge to the process of
appointment of nominated Councillor in the Tumsar Municipal Council more
particularly letter/communication dated 11 th February 2026 and 12th February
2026 issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively have been challenged.
2 As the reliefs prayed for in both the petitions are similar, this common
order can conveniently dispose of both the petitions. The substantive reliefs which
are prayed for in Writ Petition No.2788 of 2026 (Meshram) and Writ Petition No.
2787 of 2026 (Titirmare) are as follows: -
COMMON/SIMILAR PRAYERS IN BOTH:
(a) that Rule be issued;
(b) that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of
certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the
impugned letters/communications dated 11'" February 2026 and 12th February
Page 3 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
2026 issued by the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively and all consequential
actions and proceedings arising therefrom;
(c) that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the like nature directing
Respondent No.3 to issue the Official Gazette in accordance with law and to give
effect to the validly completed nomination process dated 16'" January 2026;
(d) that this Hon'ble High Court in the absence of any legal impediment, be pleased
to declare that the nomination process concluded on 16m January 2026 and the
appointments made pursuant thereto including the appointment of the Petitioner as
the Nominated Councillor of the Tumsar Municipal Council, are valid and binding
in law;
(e) that pending the hearing and final disposal this Hon'ble high Court be pleased to
stay the implementation, effect and operation of the impugned
letters/communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12' February 2026 issued by
the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively and all consequential steps taken pursuant
thereto;
(f) that pending the hearing and final disposal this Hon'ble high Court be pleased to
stay the implementation, effect and operation of the letter dated 12' February 2026,
annexed at"Exhibit O", issued by the Respondent No.3, restraining the Respondents
from conducting any fresh nomination process pursuant to the impugned
communications;
(g) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (e) and (f) above be
granted;
(h) cost of the Petition be provided for;
(i) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
3. For convenience we refer to the facts in the Writ Petition No. 2788 of
2026 (Meshram) which would suffice in adjudicating the dispute in the present
proceeding. We also note that except for certain dates and names of the Petitioners.
The facts in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 (Titirmare) are similar:
i) On 21st December 2016, Respondent No. 1 issued a Government Circular
clarifying the powers of the President of the Municipal Councils and the procedure
for appointment of nominated Councillors to Municipal Councils. Thereafter, the
State Election Commission, Maharashtra, vide its order dated 29th October 2025,
announced the elections to the Municipal Councils in the State of Maharashtra.
Page 4 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3 – Collector, by order dated 5th November
2025, declared the General Election Programme, 2025 for the Tumsar Municipal
Council.
ii) On 2nd December 2025, the State Election Commission, Maharashtra revised
the election programme for the Municipal Council Elections pursuant to the order
passed by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7508 of 2025.
iii) The date fixed for declaration of the election results was 21st December 2025.
Accordingly, on 21st December 2025, the results of the General Elections to the
Tumsar Municipal Council were duly declared in accordance with law. Consequent
upon the declaration of the results, Respondent No. 3 – Collector, vide order dated
23rd December 2025, which was published in the Official Gazette of the State of
Maharashtra, notified the name of the newly elected President as well as the list of
duly elected Councillors of the Tumsar Municipal Council.
iv) It is the Petitioners’ contention that the Tumsar Municipal Council consists of
25 elected Councillors and one directly elected President, thereby making the total
strength of the Municipal Council 26 members. It is further the Petitioners’
contention that, pursuant to the declaration of the election results on 21st
December 2025, the party-wise composition of the Tumsar Municipal Council was
as follows:
a) 01 Directly Elected President - Independent.
b) 25 elected Councillors: the party-wise strength being as under:
i. Bhartiya Janata Party - 10 Seats;
ii. Nationalist Congress Party - 10 seats;
iii. Indian Nation Congress - 3 seats;
iv. Shiv Sena - 1 seat;
Page 5 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
v. Independent - 1 seat.
v) On account of the aforesaid election results, post-election alliances came to be
formed amongst the newly elected President and Councillors of the Tumsar
Municipal Council. Consequently, the composition of the Council was as follows
a) Bhariya Janata Party Samarthit Gat:
Comprising 11 Councillors (BJP - 1 and Independent - 1), having Gat
leader namely Mr. Sachin Babulal Bopche;
b) Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi:
Comprising of Councillors (NCP - 06) having Gat leader namely Mr.
Gaurishankar Subhashchandra Karemore;
c) Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi:
Comprising 05 Councillors (NCP - 2 and INC - 3), having Gat leader
namely Mrs. Ashwini Pravin Thote;
d) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi:
Comprising 04 Councillors (President - 1, NCP - 2 and Shiv Sena - 1)
having Gat leader namely Mr. Sagar Manohar Gabhane.
vi) On 1st January 2026, the newly elected President formally assumed charge of
the office of the President of the Tumsar Municipal Council. Thereafter,
Respondent No. 3 – Collector, vide communication/letter dated 6 January 2026,
directed Respondent No. 4 – the President, to convene and conduct the first
General Meeting of the Council. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 issued a
notice dated 7 January 2026 to all the newly elected Councillors convening the
first General Meeting to be held on 16 January 2026.
vii) By the aforesaid notice, Respondent No. 4 also initiated the statutory process
for the appointment of nominated Councillors and declared the programme for the
election of the Vice-President of the Tumsar Municipal Council.
Page 6 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
viii) The last date and time prescribed for submission of nominations was 15
January 2026 at 2:30 p.m. On the same day, i.e., 15 January 2026, Respondent
No. 3 – the Collector, vide a communication of even date addressed to Respondent
No. 4 – the President, forwarded the list of candidates found eligible upon scrutiny
for the purpose of nomination as Councillors.
ix) It is the Petitioners’ contention that Clause 3.6 of the Government Circular
dated 21 December 2016 prescribes the number of Councillors who may be
nominated under the statutory framework. The said framework is governed by the
provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats
(Qualifications and procedure for Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules,
2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).
x) According to the Petitioners, the determination of the number of nominated
Councillors is required to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
said Rules and the aforesaid Government Circular dated 21st December 2016.
xi) In pursuance of the provisions of the said Rules, the maximum permissible
number of nominated Councillors for the Tumsar Municipal Council is three (3).
It is the Petitioners’ contention that, having regard to the post-election alliances as
they existed at the relevant time, and for the purpose of determining the
entitlement of each alliance to the appointment of nominated Councillors, the
strength quotient of each alliance stood as under:
a) Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat/Gat/Group: 1.26;
b) Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi: 0.69;
c) Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi: 0.57;
d) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi: 0.46.
Page 7 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
xii) On 16 January 2026, Respondent No. 4 declared the appointment of the
Petitioner as one of the nominated Councillors of the Tumsar Municipal Council.
The list of nominated Councillors, as approved and declared in the meeting held
on 16 January 2026, was as follows:
i) Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in WP No.2787/2026)
ii) Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar
iii) Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram (Petitioner herein)
4. However, Respondent No. 3, by its letter dated 19 January 2026
addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, sought the
setting aside of the process of appointment of nominated Councillors of the
Tumsar Municipal Council on the ground that Respondent No. 4 had erroneously
conducted and concluded the process relating to the appointment of the aforesaid
nominated Councillors.
5. On 20 January 2026, Respondent No. 3, vide his order of even date,
initiated the process for the election of members to the Standing Committee and
other Special Committees of the Tumsar Municipal Council. By the said order,
Respondent No. 3 directed that a Special Meeting of the Municipal Council be
convened for the purpose of constituting and electing members to the aforesaid
Committees in accordance with the governing statutory provisions.
6. On 22nd January 2026 the Petitioner vide letters of even date requested
Respondent No.3 that his name as nominated councilor be duly published in the
official Gazette. On the said date Respondent No.4 also issued letter requesting
Respondent No.3 to issue the official Gazette or to postpone the schedule meeting
Page 8 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
dated 27th January 2026 for the election to the standing committee. It is the
Petitioners contention that in the letter dated 22 nd January 2026 the Petitioner had
specifically requested Respondent No.3 to duly publish his name as nominated
councilors in the official Gazette as it was a statutory requirement to enable the
Petitioner to attend the subject meeting scheduled on 27 th January 2026 or to
postpone the scheduled meeting. It is petitioner's contention that it was specifically
pointed out that similar nominated councilors names had already been issued in
the Official Gazette in other districts.
7. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned
letter/communication dated 11th February 2026 setting aside the appointment of
the Petitioner as nominated councilor and further Respondent No.3 issued another
communication dated 12th February 2026 setting aside the nomination process.
The Respondent No.3 also directed Respondent No.4 to convene a General
meeting for the purposes of undertaking appointment of nominated councilors
afresh expressly stating therein that earlier appointment made of 16 th January 2026
need to be set aside.
8. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioners being
aggrieved by the impugned letters/communication dated 11 th February 2026 issued
by Respondent No.1 and impugned letter/communication dated 12 th February
2026 issued by Respondent No.3 have filed the present Petition. In the course of
the proceedings which have been filed by both the aforesaid Petitioners, an
Intervention Application has been filed bearing No. 16159 of 2026 in Writ
Petition No. 2787/2026 wherein the intervener has prayed for impleadment as
Page 9 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
party Respondent in the aforesaid Petition. Primary ground on which intervener
has filed the present Interim Application being that the Respondent No.4
erroneously declared the names of three councilors including that of the aforesaid
Petitioners without following the provisions of the The Maharashtra Municipal
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rules thereunder as well as Government Resolution
dated 21st December 2016. It is on this ground that the intervener has sought
reliefs from this Court to allow him to be impleaded as party Respondent and also
to give him a fair hearing before passing any orders in the aforesaid petition.
9. When the present proceedings were listed before the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court on 11th March 2026, the following order was passed:-
P.C.:-
1. These matters were heard extensively today. At 5.50 p.m. the learned AGP,
Mr. Chandurkar, submits that the Court may pass an appropriate order.
2. We have perused the impugned order dated 11 th February, 2026, by which
a direction has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Urban
Development Department, State of Maharashtra, to the District Collector,
stating that the nominations made for inducting nominated Councillors of the
Tumsar Municipal Council, are not in accordance with the provisions of law
and the said nominations made by the elected President of the Municipal
Council, as well as the procedure adopted by the District Collector, should be
cancelled and fresh nominations should be made in terms of the Government
Circular dated 21st December, 2016.
3. A single glance at the impugned order indicates that the said order is
without reasons. The Deputy Secretary has not taken the pains to indicate in
her order as to which provisions of law have been disregarded or which clause
e the Circular or which provision or the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and
Nagar Panchayats Nominations and Procedure for Appointment of
Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010, has been violated.
4. Though the learned AGP, Mr. Chandurkar, has made a valiant attempt to
analyse the impugned order, we can see his discomfort in conveying to us as to
which Rule, Section or Clause of the Circular can be said to have been
violated, in the light of the impression carried by the Deputy Secretary while
passing the impugned order.
Page 10 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
5. The District Collector is now set to re-consider his earlier decision of
nominations and would now again formalise the nominations of the
Councillors tomorrow, ie., 12th March, 2026. The Petitioners before us were
already nominated. They are aggrieved that the unreasoned impugned order
of the Deputy Secretary, who has no authority to sit over the business of the
Municipal Council in nominating Councillors, has led to the District
Collector finding himself in a helpless situation. He has no option, but to
obey the directions of the Deputy Secretary and cancel the nominations made
earlier.
6. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 27 th April, 2026. The
learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Let the affidavit in reply be filed, at least, ten days prior to the returnable
date.
8. Until further orders, if the Gat Netas have made their recommendations to
the President of the Council and, in turn, if the President of the Council has
conveyed those names to the District Collector, we direct the District
Collector to keep all such nominations in a sealed envelope.
10. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi alongwith Mr. Shantanu Patil, learned counsel
appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in both Writ Petitions. Smt. Neha S. Bhide
Government Pleader alongwith Shri. O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. with Smt.
P.N.Diwan, AGP, appeared for Respondent in both Writ Petitions. Mr. Rushikesh
Kekane, learned counsel for Applicant appeared in Intervention Application (ST)
No.16159/2026 in Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2026.
11. The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners is that the impugned letters/communications dated 11th February
2026 and 12th February 2026, whereby the nomination process was set aside, have
been issued in an arbitrary and impermissible manner, thereby vitiating the process
of nomination of nominated Councillors. It was further contended that the process
of appointment of nominated Councillors to the Municipal Council was conducted
in a fair and transparent manner, with all concerned parties being afforded equal
Page 11 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
opportunity in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and that no illegality
whatsoever had been committed in the said process.
12. It is submitted that the maximum number of nominated Councillors in
Tumsar Municipal Council is three (3), and the same is required to be determined
on the basis of the relative strength of the recognized parties, registered parties,
Groups, or Aghadies. The submission is that the nominations made by Respondent
No.3 were in consonance with the provisions of Section 63(2B) of the Act. It was
further submitted that, having regard to the aforesaid statutory provisions and the
relative strength of the respective parties, the nominated Councillors were duly
appointed.
13. On behalf of the intervener, Mr. Abhishek Jagdish Karemore, learned
counsel Mr. Rushikesh Kekane submitted that the impugned communications
dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were rightly issued, inasmuch
as the relative strength of the parties had not been correctly determined and the
mandate of Section 63(2B) of the Act had not been duly followed. He submitted
that, out of total of ten nominations forwarded by various Groups/parties for
consideration for appointment to the three posts of nominated Councillors to
Tumsar Municipal Council the name of the Applicant was also included. It was
further submitted that, upon scrutiny of the said nominations, Respondent No. 3
assessed the relative strength of the respective parties, and the outcome of such
assessment was as follows:
I) Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat – 1.26
ii) Rashtrvadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi – 0.69
Page 12 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
iii) Tumsar Rastravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi – 0.57
iv) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi - 0.46
14. It was his contention that, having regard to the aforesaid relative
strength of the parties, Gat/Group No. 4, namely Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi,
whose relative strength was only 0.46, was not entitled even to a single nomination
to the post of nominated Councillor. However, despite the same, one councilor
from Gat/Group No.4 came to be nominated as a Councillor, which, according to
the intervener, was contrary to and not in consonance with the mandate of Section
63(2B) of the Act. Consequently, it was submitted that the impugned
communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were rightly
issued to rectify the illegality committed in the nomination process.
15. In view thereof, it was submitted that the entire process of nomination
of the Councillors was not undertaken in accordance with law and, therefore, the
impugned communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026
were rightly issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, respectively.
16. Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit dated 20th April 2026 through
Mr. Sawan Kumar, District Collector, Bhandara, opposing the admission of the
aforesaid Petition. The primary contention raised in the said affidavit is that the
process of nomination was required to be undertaken in strict compliance with the
provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the Government
Resolution dated 21st December 2016. It was submitted that, despite the
requirement of adhering to the principle of relative strength, the President of
Respondent No. 4 – Tumsar Municipal Council proceeded to nominate three
Page 13 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
Councillors, namely, two from Gat/Group ‘D’ and one from Gat/Group ‘C’.
According to Respondent No. 3, such nominations were not in consonance with
the concept of relative strength as envisaged under Section 63 (2B) of the Act and
the relevant Rules. Consequently, it was contended that the impugned
letters/communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were
rightly issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid affidavit are reproduced below:
4.1. Tumsar Municipal Council has 25 Elected Councillors, 3 Nominated
Councillors and 1 Directly Elected President. In the present matter, the issue
involved revolves around the selection of the 3 nominated councillors.
4.2. Considering Tumsar Municipal Council which is Class-B Council. the
process of Selection of 3 Nominated Councillors is envisaged in Section 51B
of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial
Townships Act, 1965 and Rule 5 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and
Nagar Panchayats (Qualifications and procedure for appointment of
nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010. Apart from the aforesaid provisions, the
Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra has also
issued a Government Resolution dated 21.12.2016, which stipulates the
procedure in respect of nomination of councillors.Hereto annexed and
marked as Exhibit R-2 is a copy of the GovernmentResolution dated
21.12.2016
4.3. Accordingly, on 02.12.2025. elections of Tumsar Municipal Councils
took place. On 21.12.2025, the election results were declared and the 25
Elected Councillors and 1 President stood elected. It is pertinent to note that
the said elections are challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench (Writ Petition No. 520 of 2026) now transferred and
renumbered as Writ Petition No. 1496 of 2026 (before the Hon' ble Principal
Bench) The said matter is pending adjudication.
4.4. Post the stage of election of 25 Elected Councillors and the elected
President, the President now had to select 3 Councillors by the process of
nomination. The process of nomination had to be strictly in compliance with
the provisions laid down in the Act read with the Rules and Government
Resolution dated 21.12.2016, ie. taking into account the relative strength of
recognized parties or registered parties or Groups in proportion in strength of
such parties or Group in the Councils after consulting the leader of each of
such parties or Groups. Now taking into consideration the process envisaged,
the Nominations were called for from the Group leaders and the same were
submitted with Respondent No. 3 for scrutiny.
Page 14 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
4.5.These nominations were duly scrutinized by the Respondent No. 3,
District Collector, Bhanadara and the exercise of finding out relative strength
was also undertaken. The result of the said exercise was as under:
a. Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat: 1.26;
b. Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi: 0.69;
c. Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi: 0.57;
d. Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi: 0.46.
4.6. A list of 10 prospective councillors post the stage of scrutiny were
forwarded to the President, Tumsar Municipal Council. The names of the said
Councillors and the parties and Gat/Group to which they belong can be seen
from the list of 10 prospective Councillors which was forwarded to the
President. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-3 is a copy of the said list
of 10 prospective Councillors. Taking into consideration, the relative strength
ratio of the parties at "a", "b" & "c" above, it was expected from the president
to select 1 Councillors from "a", "b" & "e" each, totalling to 3 Councillors.
4.7. On 16.01.2026, a meeting was convened by the Tumsar Municipal
Council for selection of the Nominated Councillors. Instead of following the
relative strength ratio envisaged, the President Tumsar Municipal Council, in
the course of the said meeting selected 3 Councillors i.e. 2 from Group "d"
and one from Group "c". Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-4 is a copy
of the minutes of the meeting dated 16.01.2026, (also annexed at Exhibit J'
page 67 of the Petition).
4.8. Taking into consideration the irregularity and illegality which took place
in the meeting held on 16.01.2026, Respondent No. 3, addressed a letter on
19.01.2026, to the Principal Secretary, Navi-2, Urban Development
Department, bringing to their kind attention the facts of the matter as well as
specifically stating therein the irregularity which took place in the process of
selection of nomination councillors in Tumsar Municipal Council. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit R-5 is a copy of the Letter dated 19.01.2026.
4.9. The letter dated 19.01.2026, was duly replied to by the Urban
Development Department vide its letter dated 11.02.2026. Taking into
account the facts put forth by the District Collector vide its letter dated
19.01.2026, the Urban Development Department, directed the Collector, to
take a decision by following due process of law. Hereto annexed and marked
as Exhibit R-6 is a copy of the Letter dated 11.02.2026 (also af Exhibit 'A'
page 28 of the Petition).
4.10. Thereafter, the Collector, taking into account the gravity of the situation
as well as the clear breach of the concept of relative strength took a decision to
set aside the entire process of nomination of councillors. It is pertinent to note
that as per the relative strength ratio, there ought to have been Nominated
Councillors from Gat/Group 'a", 'b' & ‘c' above. The process and concept of
relative strength has been clearly envisaged in Section 51B of Maharashtra
Municipal Council. Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and
Rule 5 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats
(Qualifications and procedure for appointment of nominated Councillors)
Page 15 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
Rules, 2010 and also in Government Resolution dated 21.12.2016. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit R-7 is a copy of the Letter dated 12.02.2026
(impugned letter/ decision).
5. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstance, it is humbly
submitted that the grounds raised by the Petitioner as regards interference of
the executive in the democratic process are unfounded and baseless. It is clear
from the minutes of the meeting dated 16.01.2026, that the President, Tumsar
Municipal Council by selecting the persons from Group 'd' have exceeded his
powers by not following the procedure, breached the statutory provisions and
has acted in an arbitrary manner.
17. We have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Since the
controversy involved in the present Petition primarily turns upon the
interpretation of the expression “relative strength” as contemplated under Section
63(2B) of the Act, it would be apposite to reproduce the said provision:
Section 63
63. Constitution of Subjects Committees of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class Councils.—
(1) Each Subjects Committee of the Council appointed under the last preceding
section shall consist of such number of Councillors as the Council may determine, so
however that the number of members of a Subjects Committee shall not be less than
one-fourth or more than one-third of the total number of Councillors:
Provided that, in so determining the number of the members of and Subjects
Committee, a fraction shall be ignored:
Provided further that, on the Women and Child Welfare Committee, not less than
seventy-five per cent. of the members shall be from amongst women Councillors:
Provided also that, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson on the Women and
Child Welfare Committee shall be from amongst the women Councillor members
thereof.
Explanation.— For the purpose of computing the number of members at seventy-five
per cent., fraction, if any, shall be rounded off to one.
(2) The Collector shall, within seven days of the election of the President under
section 51, call a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of,—
(a) determining the number of the members of each of the Subject Committees
referred to in the last preceding section, and the Subjects Committee of which the
Vice-President shall be the ex-officio Chairman, and
Page 16 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
(b) nominating Councillors on the Subjects Committees in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section(2B)
Provided that, the President shall not be eligible for being a member of any of the
Subjects Committees [but he shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take
part in the proceedings of, any Subjects Committee, except that he shall not be
entitled to vote thereat.
(2A) [(i)] The meeting called under sub-section (2) shall be presided over by the
Collector or such officer as the Collector may by order in writing appoint in this
behalf. The Collector or such officer shall, when presiding over such meeting have the
same powers as the President of a Council, when presiding over a meeting of the
Council has, but shall not have the right to vote.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for regulating the procedure at
meetings (including the quorum thereat), the Collector or such officer may, for
reasons which in his opinion are sufficient, refuse to adjourn the meeting convened as
per the provisions of sub-section (2), after it was once cancelled or adjourned for want
of quorum.
(2B) In nominating the 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:
Provided that, the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or
Groups or aghadi or front shall be calculated by first dividing the total number of
Councillors by the total strength of members of the Committee. The number of
Councillors of the recognized parties or registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front
shall be further divided by the quotient of this division. The figures so arrived at shall
be the relative strength of the respective recognized parties or registered parties or
Groups or aghadi or front. The seats shall be allotted to the recognized parties or
registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front by first considering the whole number
of their respective relative strength so ascertained. After allotting the seats in this
manner, if one or more seats remain to be allotted, the same shall be allotted one each
to the recognized parties or registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front in the
descending order of the fraction number in the respective relative strength starting
from the highest fraction number in the relative strength, till all the seats are allotted:
Provided further that, for the purpose of deciding the relative strength of the
recognised parties or registered parties or Groups under this sub-section, 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
Maharashtra Local Authority Members‘ Disqualification Act, 1986 (Mah. XX of
1987), within a period of not more than 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 pre-poll aghadi
or front.
Page 17 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
(2C) If any question arises as regards the number of Councillors to be nominated on
behalf of such party or Group, the decision of the Collector shall be final.
(4) The Chairman of every Subjects Committee (other than the Subjects Committee
of which the Vice-President is to be the ex-officio Chairman) shall be elected by the
members of that Committee at the meeting convened under sub-section (2):
Provided that, no Councillor shall be eligible to be the Chairman of more than one
Subjects Committee.
18. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, particularly Section
63(2B) of the Act, it is evident that, while nominating Councillors, the Collector is
required to take into account the relative strength of the recognized parties,
registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts 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.
19. The proviso to Section 63(2B) prescribes the formula for determining
the relative strength of the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis
or Fronts. Once the relative strength of the respective recognized parties, registered
parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts is computed in accordance with the proviso, the
nomination of Councillors is required to be made on that basis. The seats are to be
allotted to the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts by
first considering the whole number of their relative strength as so determined.
Thereafter, if any seat remains to be allotted, the same is required to be allotted, one
each, to the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts in the
descending order of the fractional component of their respective relative strength,
commencing with the highest fraction and continuing until all the seats are
allotted.
Page 18 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
20. In the facts of the present case, the parties are ad idem that the relative
strength of Gat/Group Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as enumerated in para 3(xi) has been
correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(2B) and the
proviso thereto, and the applicable Rules. Consequently, the nomination of
Councillors from the said Groups/Aghadis cannot be faulted.
21. However, insofar as Gat/Group No. 4, namely Tumsar Shahar Vikas
Aghadi, is concerned, its relative strength has been determined at only 0.46. In
view of the scheme of Section 63(2B) and the method prescribed for allotment of
seats, such relative strength would not entitle Gat/Group No. 4 to secure
nomination of a Councillor. This being the position, we are of the considered view
that the action taken by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the impugned
communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 was justified
and in accordance with law. The nomination of Councillors to the Tumsar
Municipal Council made by Respondent No. 4, insofar as it is inconsistent with the
mandate of Section 63(2B) of the Act, was therefore liable to be set aside.
Consequently, a fresh process for nomination of eligible Councillors shall be
undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder.
22. The parties are also ad idem on the issue that out of 10 nominations
submitted the three councilors who have been selected in the meeting dated 16 th
January 2026 viz. Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2787of 2026 ) Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar and Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram,
the nominations of Mr. Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 )
Page 19 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
cannot be called into question as he belongs to Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas
Aghadi (Gat/Group No.3), which has relative strength as per provisions of Section
63(2B) of the Act. However, in respect of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar and Mr.
Shailesh Toluram Meshram (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2788 of 2026) as they
belong to Gat/Group Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi, which does not have the
relative strength as per the provisions of Section 63(2B) their nominations need to
be set aside.
23. In view of the fact that the parties are ad idem that the nomination of
Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 ), is
valid and that of the other two Councillors i.e. Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram
( Petitioner in WP No. 2788 of 2026) and of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar is invalid,
we pass the following order which will meet the ends of justice:-
ORDER
1. The impugned letters/communication dated 11 th February 2026
and 12th February 2026 are set aside to the extent that they hold
the nomination of Mr. Titirmare (Petitioner in WP No. 2787 of
2026) is invalid
2. Insofar as the nominations of the other two councillors i.e. Mr.
Shailesh Toluram Meshram ( Petitioner in WP No. 2788 of 2026)
and of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar are concerned, the impugned
letters/communications dated 11th February and 12th February
2026 are upheld and respondents are directed to initiate fresh
process of nomination of councillors as per provisions of Section
63(2B) of the Act read with the proviso thereto and the Rules
within 3 weeks from the date this order is made available to the
Respondents by the petitioners.
3. Writ Petition No.2788 of 2026 filed by Mr. Shailesh Toluram
Meshram is dismissed whereas Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2026
Page 20 of 21
Mane
1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC
filed by Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare stands disposed of in the
aforeaid terms. No costs.
4. All other interim applications, if any, also do not survive in view of
the aforesaid orders
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 21 of 21
Mane
Checking your session…