RAJESH VADHRYA AND ANRversusULHASNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:37688-DB                                                       901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12116 OF 2026

             1. Rajesh Vadhrya
             2. Pradeep Ramchandani                                         … Petitioners
                    Versus
             1. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
             2. The Municipal Commissioner,
                Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.
             3. The Mayor, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
             4. The Municipal Secretary,
                Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
             5. The State of Maharashtra                                    … Respondents
                                               _______
             Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, a/w Mayur Khandeparkar, Monish Bhatia,
             Minal Chandnani, Mohit Jagiasi, Darshil Shah & Rajesh Ranglani for Petitioners.
             Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Suresh M. Kamble for Respondent Nos. 1
             to 4.
             Mr. Sumeet Tirthani, Narayan R. Bubna, Pooja Malik, Aryanraj A. Achhra for
             Intervenors.
             Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                 _______

                                         CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                        DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                         DATE:          11th SEPTEMBER 2026

             ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)

             1.     The present petition raises two basic issues; firstly, whether the Mayor under

             the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 read with the

             Rules thereunder would have authority and power to indefinitely postpone a

             Special General Body Meeting of the Municipal Corporation convened by the

             Mayor and secondly, in what manner and purpose, such power can be exercised.

             2.     This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially



                                               Page 1 of 27
             Ajit
                                                                                          901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



challenges the communication dated 7th September 2026, issued by Respondent

No.2, the Municipal Commissioner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation

(“Municipal Corporation”), informing the Deputy Mayor and other office bearers

of the Municipal Corporation 1 that in pursuance of the communication dated 4 th

September 2026 of the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation/Respondent No.3,

the process of accepting the nomination forms being held on 7 th September 2026

for appointment of the nominated councillors and for which a Special General

Body Meeting (“SGBM”) being held on 11 th September 2026, stands indefinitely

postponed.


3.        The Petitioners also assail the decision of the Mayor dated 4 th September

2026 (Exhibit-B) who has addressed the said communication to the Municipal

Commissioner, which is on the basis of two letters/notices dated 3 rd September

2026 and 4th September 2026, received from the advocates on behalf of their

clients. By these letters/notices of the advocates, an objection has been raised to the

process of accepting “Nominations Forms” from the candidates for appointment as

nominated Councillors in the SGBM being conveyed for the said purpose today

(on 11th September 2026). The advocates in the said letters have stated that they

were concerned for their clients who were elected Councillors, who were

disqualified as Councillors, as their caste certificates were invalidated by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee. They stated that their clients (disqualified Councillors) have

filed     proceedings           before this Court, assailing the invalidation of the caste

certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, resulting into their disqualification as

1 the Leader of the House of the Municipal Corporation; the Chairman of the Standing Committee; the Opposition
Leader; and the other heads of the different political parties of the Municipal Corporation,



                                                 Page 2 of 27
Ajit
                                                               901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



Councillors, which were sub judice before this Court. They stated that in these

circumstances a prejudice was being caused to their clients, who would not be in a

position to participate in the SGBM to be held on 11 September 2026. The Mayor

acting upon these letters of the Advocates, by the impugned decision indefinitely

postponed the SGBM being convened vide notice dated 31st August 2026 to be

held on 11 September 2026, on the ground that the Mayor was seeking a legal

opinion in the context of such letters of the advocates. It is pursuant to this

order/communication of the Mayor dated 4 September, 2026, that the

Commissioner by the impugned communication dated 7 September, 2026 has

postponed the meeting indefinitely.



4.     The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petition describes petitioner No.1 to

be the Gat Neta of a political party which had participated in the Municipal

Elections. It is contended that petitioner no. 1 is a functionary with whom the

Municipal Commissioner was statutorily required to have consultations in relation

to the recommendations to be made in nominating the councillors, espousing the

interest of his political party. Petitioner No.2 is also described to be a person duly

qualified for nomination as a councillor, being an office bearer of the duly

registered public charitable trust society engaged in social welfare activities within

the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation.


5.     The general elections of the Municipal Corporation were held on 16

January 2026. It is the case of the Petitioners that after such elections were held

and the results declared, as per the requirement of the provisions of Section 5(2)(b)


                                  Page 3 of 27
Ajit
                                                                         901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (“MMC Act”), nominated

councillors not exceeding 10% of the total number of elected councillors or ten,

whichever is less, having special knowledge or experience, are to be nominated by

the Municipal Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 5(2)(b)

reads thus:


       “5.    Constitution of Corporation.
              (1) * * * * * *
              (2) Each Corporation shall consist of,-
                     (a) * * * * * *
                     (b) such number of nominated councillors [not exceeding ten per cent. Of
                     the total number of elected councillors or ten, whichever is less], having
                     special knowledge or experience in Municipal Administration to be
                     nominated by the Corporation in such manner as may be prescribed;]
               * * * * * *”

6.     The Petitioners contend that the appointment of the nominated councillors

is governed by the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Qualification and

Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules 2012 (for short the “2012 Rules”).

Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the Corporation shall hold a meeting for

nomination of the councillors after the expiry of one month from the date of

notification of election results, after general elections, for nomination of the

nominated councillors. The said Rule reads thus:

       “3.     Meeting for nomination of councillors
                       Subject to the provisions of rule 4, the Corporation shall, in its
       meeting held immediately after the expiry of one month from the date of
       notification of election results, after general elections, nominate five persons to be
       nominated councillors.”

7.     Also, Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules provides for nomination of councillors,

which reads thus:

        “5.   Nomination of councillors
              (1) For the purpose of nomination of councillors, the Commissioner shall,


                                       Page 4 of 27
Ajit
                                                                     901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



             after consulting the Leader of the House, Leader of Opposition and Leader
             of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and
             after taking into account the relative strength of such parties and groups
             recommend the names of suitable persons to the Corporation for being
             nominated as a nominated councillor. The names of such persons
             recommended shall not exceed the number of councillors to be nominated
             in accordance with rule 3.


                        Provided that, while recommending the names of persons to be
             nominated councillors on the basis of relative strengths of the recognized
             or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts, formed as per the
             provisions of sub-section (2) of section 50S of the Mumbai Municipal
             Corporation Act, or section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal
             Corporation Act, 1949 or section 40A of the City of Nagpur Corporation
             Act, 1948, as the case may be, the Commissioner shall first consider the
             whole number of the seats admissible for nomination of persons as
             nominated councillors to such recognized or registered parties or groups or
             aghadis or fronts, as per their relative strengths and thereafter if one or
             more seats remain to be allotted, the same shall be allotted to such
             recognized or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts in the
             descending order of the fraction numbers, considering the highest fraction
             till all the seats of nominated councillors are allotted:

                     Provided further that, while recommending the names of the basis
             of the descending order of the fraction number, as mentioned in the above
             proviso, if two or more recognized parties or groups or aghadis or fronts
             have the same fraction number, then the Commissioner shall, recommend
             the names of person belonging to such recognized or registered parties or
             groups or aghadis or fronts, selected on the basis of lots drawn in the
             presence of all such concerned parties or groups or aghadis or fronts.]


             (2) The Corporation shall, after considering the recommendation by the
             Commissioner, nominate the councillors:


                   Provided that, if the Corporation decides not to accept the
             recommendation of the Commissioner with respect to a person so
             recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor:


                      Provided further that, every endeavor shall be made to ensure that
             one councillor each possessing any of the qualifications referred to in
             clauses (a) to (g) of rule 4 has been nominated.”



8.     It is clear from the reading of Rule 5 that for the purpose of nomination of

councillors, it is the Commissioner, who shall, after consulting the Leader of the


                                    Page 5 of 27
Ajit
                                                              901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



House, Leader of Opposition and Leader of each recognized or registered party or

group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the relative strength of

such parties and groups, recommend the names of suitable persons to the

Corporation for being nominated as nominated councillors. It is also provided that

the names of such persons recommended shall not exceed the number of the

councillors to be appointed in accordance with Rule 3. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5

provides that the Corporation shall after considering the recommendations by the

Commissioner, nominate the councillors. The proviso thereunder stipulates that if

the Corporation decides not to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner

with respect to the person so recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor.


9.     It appears from the record that although Rule 3 required that within one

month of the election of the Municipal Corporation, a meeting be convened for

appointment of the nominated councillors, the same was not immediately

convened. However, by notice dated 31st August 2026 issued by the Municipal

Secretary on the orders of the Mayor, such notice was published on 31 st August

2026, providing that the nomination forms be submitted on 7 th September 2026.

On the even date, the Municipal Secretary issued a notice that the SGBM for such

purpose would be held on 11 th September 2026 at 5:00 p.m. (i.e.,today) for

appointment of seven nominated councillors. Both the said notices dated 31 st

August 2026, are annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the Municipal

Commissioner on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4.


10.    As noted hereinabove, it appears that after such notices dated 31 st August



                                  Page 6 of 27
Ajit
                                                                  901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



2026 were issued, two letters/notices dated 3rd September 2026 and 4th September

2026 were received by the Municipal Commissioner, addressed by the advocates,

representing one ‘Pooja Kishor Bhokre alias Pooja Sachin Bhoir’ and another ‘Vicky

Darshansingh Labana’, who were elected Councillors, whose caste certificates were

invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The said letters/notice recorded that

these persons have approached this Court challenging the said decision/s in the

proceedings of Writ Petition bearing (St) No.19268 of 2026 and Writ Petition

bearing (ST) No. 14917 of 2026 respectively, which are stated to be pending before

this Court. The grievance of both these elected corporators, in such letters, of their

respective advocates, was to the effect that due to invalidity of their caste certificate,

they have suffered disqualification, which has caused a prejudice to them from

participating in the process of appointment of nominated councillors, as per

Section 5(2)(b) of the MMC Act. It was contended that if the process of election of

Co-opted Corporators is proceeded on the basis of the reduced numerical strength,

the same would cause prejudice to them, hence the proceedings of Co-opting

Corporators ought not to proceed.            It was specifically contended that the

disqualified   corporators strongly objected to the process of election of the

nominated Councillors on the basis of the alleged disqualification on the ground of

reduced numerical strength of their respective parties. For such reason, they

requested the Municipal Commissioner to defer the election process being held on

11 September, 2026, to nominate the Councillors, contending that the proceedings

assailing their disqualification were pending before this Court. Illustratively, the

request as made in the letter addressed by the advocate for one of the elected



                                    Page 7 of 27
Ajit
                                                                          901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



corporators namely Pooja Kishor Bhokre alias Pooja Sachin Bhoir, is required to be

noted, which reads thus:

            “14. In view of the above, I call upon your good office to:
            a. Take this objection on record;
            b. Defer the election process of Co-opted Corporators until the Hon'ble
            Bombay High Court considers the interim relief in Writ Petition (St.) No.
            19268 of 2026;
            c. Not proceed with or finalize the election of Co-opted Corporators on the
            basis of the reduced numerical strength caused by the disputed
            disqualification of my client;
            d. In the alternative, record that any further process of election of Co-opted
            Corporators shall remain subject to the outcome of Writ Petition (St.) No.
            14917 of 2026 and further orders of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court;
            e. Grant an opportunity of hearing to my client before taking any further
            step”

11.    The said letters/notices of the advocates were addressed to the Municipal

Commissioner, however, it appears that copies of the said letters were addressed to

Respondent No.3-Mayor and it is the Mayor who took cognizance of these letters,

who by the impugned letter/order dated 4th September 2026, addressed to the

Municipal Commissioner, recorded that a legal opinion has been sought on such

issue as raised by the advocates of the disqualified Councillors and therefore, the

process of appointing nominated councillors in the SGBM to be held on 11 th

September 2026, be indefinitely postponed. It is such orders of the Mayor which

were acted upon by the Municipal Commissioner, in issuing the impugned letter

dated 7th September 2026, indefinitely postponing the SGBM to appoint

nominated councillors, is the challenge as mounted in the present proceedings.


12.    Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, has made

extensive submissions. His first submission is to the effect that the Mayor would

not have any authority or jurisdiction to indefinitely postpone the meeting being


                                     Page 8 of 27
Ajit
                                                                901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



held today at 5:00 p.m. in which seven councillors were to be nominated as per the

requirement of Section 5(2)(b) of the MMC Act, which according to him, in fact

ought to have happened within one month from the date of the general election

results, which took place on 16th January 2026. He submits that even assuming that

the Mayor has the power to convene a meeting which would include a power even

to postpone a meeting, however, such power is required to be exercised in

accordance with law and it cannot be an arbitrary exercise of power or for any

collateral purposes and/or not bona fide. It is his submission that merely because

the Mayor has received letters from the advocates of two elected corporators, who

have suffered disqualification, this could never be a ground for the Mayor to

address the impugned letter dated 4 th September 2026 to the Municipal

Commissioner, ordering indefinite postponing of the SGBM to be held today to

appoint the nominated councillors. It is also his submission that in the present case,

the Municipal Commissioner has also acted mechanically in accepting the orders of

the Mayor in issuing the impugned communication dated 7 th September 2026

orders the elections to be indefinitely postponed. It is next submitted that it is clear

from the record that the reasons as set out by the disqualified corporators, that a

prejudice was caused to them, preventing their participation in the SGBM, in view

of the disqualification suffered by them, on account of their caste certificate being

invalidated is an untenable contention. It is his submission that the legal status of

these councillors, was that of disqualified councillors.         It is submitted that

considering the settled principle of law, once they were disqualified, there was no

question of the Mayor acting upon the letters of the advocates, as if the letters of



                                   Page 9 of 27
Ajit
                                                              901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



the advocates, in some manner were in the nature of an injunction granted by any

Court, and more particularly when the proceedings in regard to their caste

certificate being invalidated were sub judice before this Court, on which no interim

orders were passed. It is his submission that the reasons as set out in the letter of

the advocates were certainly political reasons and which can never form basis of

such action being taken by either the Mayor or the Municipal Commissioner to

postpone the meeting being convened today, to appoint nominated councillors and

that too indefinitely.


13.    Mr. Anturkar has further submitted that the entire action on the part of the

Mayor and the Commissioner is illegal, and in fact such action is required to be

held to be a colorable exercise of power and an action taken for collateral reasons

and not bona fide, if not mala fide. It is also his submission that discharge of

statutory compliances to appoint the nominated councillors, cannot have been

postponed in such manner and for such reason as borne out by the impugned

communication issued by the Mayor.


14.    On the other hand Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate who has

represented Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would support the impugned action. Mr.

Sakhare submitted that the Petitioners are not correct in their contention, that the

Mayor had no authority to postpone the SGBM indefinitely, as the Mayor

possessed the power to convene a meeting, relying on the provisions of Chapter II

of Schedule D under the MMC Act, making provisions for the proceedings of the

Corporation, Standing Committees, etc., under which paragraph 1(c) provided for



                                  Page 10 of 27
Ajit
                                                                       901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



the manner in which the Mayor can convene a meeting. The Provisions of

paragraph 1(c) are required to be noted which reads thus:


       “1(c) the day, time and place of meeting shall in every other case be fixed by the
       Mayor or in the event of the office of Mayor being vacant, or of the death or
       resignation of the Mayor or of his ceasing to be a councillor, or of his being
       incapable of acting, by the Deputy Mayor, or failing both the Mayor and the
       Deputy Mayor, by the Chairman of the Standing Committee;”

15.    It is Mr. Sakhare’s submission relying on the reply Affidavit filed by Ms.

Manisha Ahawale, the Municipal Commissioner, that in the given facts the

Commissioner was justified in implementing the orders passed by the Mayor to

postpone the SGBM indefinitely, for the reasons which are recorded in the letter of

the Mayor addressed to the Commissioner. He submitted that the Mayor acted

upon the representations made by the said disqualified corporators, who had raised

an objection to holding of the SGBM on the ground that prejudice will be caused

to them, if the proceedings were to be taken forward and the nomination of the

councillors takes place sans the participation of the said Councillors although

presently they were disqualified and more particularly for the reason that their

disqualification, has reduced the numerical strength of the respective party and

which would prejudice, such nominations to be made. Mr. Sakhare has relied on

the decision of the Supreme Court in Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel v. Arun

Subodhbhai Mehta2 to contend that the Mayor has the power to not only convene

the meeting but also to postpone the meeting, and in the present case justifiably for

indefinite period, as the Mayor found it appropriate to approach the State

Government to seek its opinion / legal advice in regard to the position of the


2 AIR 1989 SC 1289


                                     Page 11 of 27
Ajit
                                                             901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



disqualified corporators affecting the SGBM. It is Mr. Sakhare’s submission that the

impugned communication was issued on 7th September 2026 and in pursuance

thereto none of the nominations have been accepted and hence, according to him

there was no warrant for the proposed meeting to be held today at 05:00 p.m. It is

his submission that the Mayor and Commissioner have acted bona fide in

accordance with law, hence the Petitioners’ contention that impugned action on the

part of the Mayor as also the Commissioner is not bona fide or is for collateral

purposes is wholly untenable. Mr. Sakhare would submit that the petition deserves

to be dismissed.


16.    We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the

record including reply Affidavit filed by the Municipal Commissioner on behalf of

the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.



17.    We may at the outset observe that Section 5(2)(b) of the MMC Act

categorically provides for the councillors to be appointed by nomination. In regard

to such appointment by nomination, specific Rules are framed under the MMC

Act, namely, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and

Appointment of Nominated councillors) Rules, 2012 (supra). The obligation

under Rule 3 and 4 is inter alia is to the effect that Corporation holds a meeting

after expiry of one month from the date of notification of election results of the

general elections, to appoint nominated councillors and the procedure in that

regard to be followed by the Commissioner as set out in Rule 5 of the said

Rules (supra). Admittedly, such meeting (SGBM) for such purpose was not



                                 Page 12 of 27
Ajit
                                                               901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



convened within one month in breach of the statutory mandate. We, however, do

not intend to delve upon the reason as to why such statutory obligation was not

timely met and more importantly, when the nominated councillors are integral to

the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, under the provisions of the Act as

provided for under Section 5 of the MMC Act.



18.    The question, however, is that although belatedly, steps were initiated by the

Mayor to hold a meeting to nominate the councillors as per the said statutory

requirement and to that effect a notice was issued on 31 st August 2026, as also

respective communications to that effect were issued to the elected councillors and

other stakeholders, for submitting the nomination forms on 7 September, 2026,

for which a meeting (SGBM) was convened on 11 th September 2026 (today) at

05:00 pm. Whether such meeting could have been indefinitely postponed, in the

fact circumstances.


19.    It is clear from the record that the sole reason for the Mayor to take a

decision to indefinitely postpone the SGBM stems from the letter of the advocates

of the two disqualified councillors, copies of which were received by the Mayor,

when such letters admittedly were addressed to the Commissioner. The ground on

which the Mayor has found it appropriate to postpone the election was to enable

the Mayor to seek legal advice, as to whether the disqualification of the said elected

councillors on their caste certificate being invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, in respect of which proceedings were pending before this Court, would

bring about a situation of any prejudice being caused to such disqualified


                                  Page 13 of 27
Ajit
                                                                         901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



councillors, requiring the SGBM to be held today at 5:00 p.m., to be postponed

indefinitely. It is such request of the Mayor which has been acted upon by the

Municipal Commissioner between the impugned communication dated 7 th

September 2026 to postpone today’s SGBM indefinitely.

20.     On the authority and powers of the Mayor to convene a SGBM, it appears

that the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of Chapter II of Schedule D, which is a

provision, inter alia in relation to regulating the Corporation’s proceedings, confers

an authority on the Mayor to fix the date, time and place of the meeting as set out

in the said provision. When the statutory mandate itself provides that the Mayor

can fix the date, time and place of meeting, it cannot be said that Mayor has no

authority to convene such meeting.


21.     In the present case, the Mayor had convened the said meeting (SGBM) to

be held today (11th September 2026 at 05:00 pm), as seen from the notice issued

by the Municipal Secretary dated 31st August 2026. This was not objected by the

petitioner and/or accepted. Once the Mayor had the authority to convene a

meeting implicit in the said authority is the power and authority to postpone the

meeting for a reason which is lawful *. In such context we need to refer to the

provisions of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 as also Section

21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which read thus:

         General Clauses Act, 1897
         Section 21 Power to issue, to include, power to addl, to amend, vary or rescind,
         notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws- Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a
         power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power


* See Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 and Section 28 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897.


                                       Page 14 of 27
Ajit
                                                                          901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



        includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and
        conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules
        or bye-laws so issued.

        Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904
        Section 21Power to make to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind,
        orders, etc.- Where, by any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act, a power to issue
        notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a
        power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and
        conditions if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules
        or bye-laws, so issued.




22.      In the context of the aforesaid provisions, we may usefully refer to the

decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Jitendrabhai

Chunibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 3 in which considering the challenge to a

notification cancelling the election programme, the Division Bench held that

power to issue such notification included power to rescind such notification. The

following observations as made by the Court are required to be noted, which read

thus:

            “56. As regards challenge to the notification dated 13.1.2003 cancelling the
            election programme dated 19.12.2002 issued by the Director, it is obvious that
            if the proposed denotification of the Dascroi taluka market area and the
            proposed amalgamation of the said area into Ahmedabad city taluka market area
            takes place, the question of holding elections to the APMC for the Ahmedabad
            City Taluka without the Dascroi Taluka area would not arise. In fact, the APMC
            elected by the voters in the Ahmedabad City Taluka Market Area would not be
            representative of the APMC for Ahmedabad city taluka and Dascroi taluka
            market areas taken together.

            57. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the
            election programme was issued by the Director, it was not open to any authority
            to cancel such programme.

            58. The learned Additional Advocate General has invited our attention to the
            provisions of Sec. 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which reads as
            under: -

                   "21. Power to make to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind,
                   orders, etc. Where, by any Bombay Act, or Gujarat Act a power to issue
                   notifications, orders, rules, bye-laws is conferred, then that power

3 2004 SCC OnLine Guj 553


                                       Page 15 of 27
Ajit
                                                                      901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



                  includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like
                  sanction and conditions (if any), to, add to amend, vary or rescind any
                  notifications, orders, rules or bye- law, so issued."

           59. The power to issue a notification, therefore, includes the power to rescind
           such notification.”


23.    If this be the legal position, the question is, however, whether the Mayor in

the present case has acted in a manner which can be recognized in law and/or

whether she has acted for a collateral purpose and not bona fide in issuing the

impugned communication, directing the Commissioner to postpone the SGBM

indefinitely.


24.    In such context, we find much substance in the contention as urged by Mr

Anturkar that there was hardly any reason and much less, which can be recognized

in law in the Mayor acting upon the letters of the Advocates of the disqualified

councillors who although were elected, stood disqualified on their caste certificate

being invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is a settled principle of law

and more particularly in the context of what has been provided under Section 10 of

the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (‘2000

Act’) that on the Caste Scrutiny Committee passing an order invalidating Caste

Certificate, it brought about a deemed disqualification. This is also clear from the

provisions of Section 10(4) of the 2000 Act as also the provisions of Section 10

(1C) of the MMC Act, 1949 . The said provisions are required to be noted:


        “ Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
        Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category


                                     Page 16 of 27
Ajit
                                                                          901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



         (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000

         Section 10 Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn.
         4
          [1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled castes,
         Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
         Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures admission in any
         educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes,
         or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other
         Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any
         Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved
         for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate / fake
         Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny
         Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational
         institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment
         forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission
         or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith.

         (2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency
         by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be
         recovered from such person as an arrear of land revenue.

         (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force,
         any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such
         person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a
         Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be fake or false shall also
         stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny
         Committee.

         (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,
         a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he
         has contested the election for local authority, Co-operative Society or any
         statutory body on the seat reserved for any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
         Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
         Classes or Special Backward Category by procuring a fake Caste Certificate or
         false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such fake
         Caste Certificate or false Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny
         Committee, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as
         arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have
         been terminated retrospectively.

         (5) After Caste Certificate has been cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny
         Committee, the concerned Appointing Authority, Local Authority,
         Government, Educational Institution, Statutory Body or Agency shall take
         action for withdrawal of benefits given to such person,—

         (a) within thirty days from the date of order of the Appellate Authority if
         appeal is filed, and it is rejected by the Appellate Authority;

         (b) within thirty days from the lapse of appeal period specified in sub-section
         (1) of section 6B, if appeal is not filed. ];
                                                                    (emphasis supplied)


4 Amended by Amendment Act No. XXXVIII of 2026


                                        Page 17 of 27
Ajit
                                                                           901-WP-12116-2026.DOC




       Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949

       10. Disqualification for being a councillor.

       (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 13 and 404, a person shall be
       disqualified for being elected and for being a councillor, if such person-
       …
       (1B) (a) A person shall be disqualified for being a Councillor, or for contesting
       an election for being elected as a Councillor, for a period of six years, if, an order
       is passed by the concerned authority, under section 12 or, as the case may be,
       section 16, holding that such person was elected as a Councillor to a seat which
       was reserved for a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste, a Scheduled Tribe
       or a Backward Class of Citizens (hereinafter referred to as "a reserved category")
       on the basis of false claim or a false Caste Certificate declaring that such person
       belonged to such reserved category.

       (b) Such period of disqualification shall be computed with effect from the date
       of passing of such order by the concerned authority.

       (1C) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1B), a Councillor
       who has been elected to a reserved seat as mentioned in sub- section (1B), shall
       be disqualified for being such Councillor consequent upon the concerned
       Scrutiny Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the
       Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
       Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
       (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 or any
       other competent authority specified by the State Government for the purpose of
       scrutiny of the Caste Certificates, declaring the Caste Certificate of such
       Councillor to be invalid and cancelling the same, on the ground of the same
       having been based on a false claim or declaration made by such person claiming
       to be belonging to the reserved category, and thereupon the Councillor shall be
       deemed to have vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of such
       Certificate to be invalid and cancellation of the same by the said Scrutiny
       Committee or by the competent authority.

       (b) On any person having been disqualified for being a Councillor and
       consequently, his seat as such Councillor having become vacant under clause
       (a), the State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
       disqualify such person for being elected or being a Councillor for a period of six
       years from the date of such order.”
                                                               (emphasis supplied)


25.    The position in law on an elected councillor being deemed to have been

disqualified, on the claim for validity of the caste certificate being rejected by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee is no more res integra. InVishakha Sharad Raut alias

Vishakha Moreshwar Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.5, recently the

5 2026:BHC-AS:36294-DB


                                        Page 18 of 27
Ajit
                                                                          901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



Division Bench has held that sub-section(1C)(a) of Section 16 of the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888* in the context of Caste Scrutiny Committee

declaring the Caste Certificate of the councillor to be invalid, stipulates a deeming

effect, namely, that in such eventuality, the councillor shall be deemed to have

vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of the Caste Certificate as

invalid and cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. The relevant observations as

made by the Court are required to be noted which read thus:

         22. Thus, sub-section(1C)(a) of Section 16 of the MMC Act in the context of
         Caste Scrutiny Committee declaring the Caste Certificate of the Councillor to be
         invalid, stipulates a deeming effect, namely, that in such eventuality, the Councillor
         shall be deemed to have vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of
         the Caste Certificate as invalid and cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. Sub-
         section (1C)(b) provides that on any person having been disqualified as a
         Councillor, consequently, his seat as Councillor having become vacant as a
         consequence of clause (a) of sub-section (1C), the State Government, shall by
         notification in the Official Gazette, disqualify such person for being elected or
         being a Councillor for a period of six years from the date of such order. Thus,
         clause (b) of sub-section (1C) is a consequence of what is provided for in clause (a)
         of sub-section (1C). It is this provision which has been invoked by the Municipal
         Commissioner while issuing the impugned communication(s).
         ………

         26. Once such is the effect as brought about by the provisions of sub-section (4)
         of Section 10, which remains unaffected by the amendment brought about by
         incorporation of sub-section (5)(a) and (b), the consequence is not too far to be
         seen, namely, that in the present case the petitioner’s caste certificate having been
         declared to be invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 20 August, 2026,
         necessarily the petitioner’s election is “deemed to have” been terminated
         retrospectively. Merely because, clause (b) of sub-section (5) provides for a
         limitation of thirty days from the lapse of the appeal period for withdrawal of the
         “benefits”, in our opinion, the said provision would not dilute or extinguish or
         affect, in any manner, the deeming effect as brought about by the provisions of
         sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act.

         27. Having considered the provisions of the 2000 Act, we now advert on the
         provisions of Section 16 of the MMC Act, which have been invoked by the
         Municipal Commissioner in addressing the impugned communication(s).

         28. As noted herein above, Section 16 is an independent provision under the
         MMC Act providing for ‘disqualification for being a Councilor’. Sub-section (1C)
         (a) of Section 166 of the MMC Act is the relevant provision, as invoked by the

* The provisions under which are pari materia to the provisions of the MMC Act (supra)
6 Sub-Sections (1B) & (1C) were re-inserted by Mah. 43 of 2015, dt. 31-12-2015


                                       Page 19 of 27
Ajit
                                                                        901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



       Municipal Commissioner. The purport of which appears to us is not different
       from what has been provided for under Section 10 (4) of the 2000 Act. Sub-
       section (1C)(a) categorically provides that a Councilor who has been elected to a
       reserved seat as mentioned in sub-section (1B) shall be disqualified for being a
       Councilor consequent upon the concerned Scrutiny Committee constituted under
       sub-section (1) of section 6 of the 2000 Act, declaring the Caste Certificate of such
       Councilor to be invalid and canceling the same, on the ground of the same being
       based on a false claim or declaration made by such a person claiming to belong to
       the reserved category, and thereupon the Councilor shall be ‘deemed’ to have
       vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of such Certificate to be
       invalid and canceled by the said Scrutiny Committee or by the competent
       authority. Thus, this is the second “deeming provision” when it comes to the
       election in addition to what has been provided under Sub section (4) of section 10
       of the 2000 Act. Thus by virtue of Section 16 of the MMC Act, the Councilor is
       deemed to have vacated his office from the date of declaration of the Caste
       Certificate to be declared invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. As noted
       herein above, clause (b) of Section 16 (1C) is consequential, providing that the
       State Government would be required to issue appropriate notification in the
       Official Gazette disqualifying such person for being elected or being a Councilor
       for a period of six years from the date of such order.

       29. … .. … .. The legislature in providing for an amendment of the 2000 Act,
       by incorporating sub-section (5) in Section 10, certainly was conscious of the
       consequences of the two fold situations; firstly, sub-section (4) of Section 10
       providing for a deeming effect, of bringing about a disqualification in the manner
       as provided, namely, that election of such person, whose caste certificate has been
       invalidated, shall be deemed to have terminated retrospectively; and secondly, sub-
       section (4) of Section 10 was a provision having an overriding effect on any law for
       the time being in force. The legislature was also not oblivious to the specific
       provisions of Section 16(1C) (a) and (b) of the MMC Act, which contemplated a
       similar effect providing for disqualification of an elected councilor in the event the
       caste certificate is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. No amendment was
       made to the MMC Act to dilute and/or to take away the effect of what has been
       provided for in Section 16(1C) (a) and (b). .. .. … … .. … ..
        … … .. .

       34.      The Supreme Court in the Chairman and Managing Director, Food
       Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. 7 has taken a review
       of the legal precedents in regard to the effect which would be brought about once
       the Caste Certificate is invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
       conclusions of the said decision are recorded in paragraph 69 of the said decision,
       in which referring to the decisions in Madhuri Patil vs. Commr. Tribal
       Development8, R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala 9 and Union of India vs.
       Dattatray10, the Supreme Court has held that where a benefit is secured by an
       individual on the basis, that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which
       the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification
       would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being
       rendered void or non est. It was observed that withdrawal of benefits secured on

7(2017) 8 SCC 670
8(1994) 6 SCC 241
9(2004) 2 SCC 105
10(2008) 4 SCC 612


                                      Page 20 of 27
Ajit
                                                                            901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



       the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false necessarily brings about
       a consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of
       retrospectivity would arise. Considering such clear position in law, we find
       ourselves in agreement with Mr. Pai in relying on the decision of the Full Bench of
       this Court in Sujit Vasant Patil (supra) wherein the Full bench has categorically
       held, as to what are the consequences, which would be brought about once the
       Scrutiny Committee refuses to issue a validity certificate to the Caste Certificate to
       the candidates, that the nomination itself would not survive and if the nomination
       would not survive, election cannot survive. It was held that cancellation of the
       election of such a candidate is a natural consequence of his caste certificate being
       found to be invalid. The following observations of the Full Bench are required to
       be noted, which reads thus:

             “12-A. Thus, the scheme of the various Local Self-Government Act in
             relation to the filing of the nomination papers and their scrutiny and the
             scheme of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 appears to be that in
             case a person desires to contest an election to a reserved seat, it is
             obligatory on his part to get a caste certificate from the competent
             authority and then immediately apply to the Scrutiny Committee to get a
             validity certificate. Therefore, normally as the candidate is required to
             make an application to the scrutiny committee as soon as he receives a
             caste certificate from the competent authority, with the result that in many
             cases his application before the scrutiny committee for validity certificate
             would be pending when his nomination paper is accepted on the basis of
             the caste certificate. If his nomination paper is accepted on the basis of
             caste certificate issued by the competent authority and as the caste
             certificate itself is valid subject to the grant of validity certificate, obviously
             acceptance of his nomination paper as valid will also be subject to the
             grant of validity certificate by the scrutiny committee. Therefore, once the
             scrutiny committee refuses to issue a validity certificate the nomination
             cannot survive and if the nomination cannot survive, election cannot
             survive. Therefore, cancellation of the election of such a candidate is a
             natural consequence of his caste certificate being found invalid.”
                                                                        (emphasis supplied)

       35. We may also usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalpana
       Dilip Bahirat vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. 11 whereby the provisions of
       Section 10(4) of 2000 Act fell for consideration of the Supreme Court. In the said
       case, the appellant contested the elections of Pune Municipal Corporation held in
       December 2011 to a seat reserved for Other Backward Classes. The appellant had
       filed proof of her caste under a caste validity certificate dated 3 July, 2008 issued by
       the Competent Authority. Subsequently, the Caste Certificate on the basis of which
       the appellant had contested the election was revealed to have never been issued and
       the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed an order holding that the appellant had not
       submitted a genuine caste certificate and as a consequence thereof, her election was
       declared to be abinitio null and void. The elected seat has become vacant
       retrospectively. A challenge was mounted by the appellant before this Court to the
       disqualification, which was not successful. In these circumstances, the proceedings
       reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considering the provisions of
       sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act observed that by virtue of such
       provisions, the consequence was that the election of the person who contested
       election on a seat reserved for one of the reserved categories, on a false caste

11(2014) 15 SCC 654


                                       Page 21 of 27
Ajit
                                                                        901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



        certificate belonging to such caste, tribe or class, shall be deemed to have been
        terminated retrospectively. It was observed that the deeming provision in sub-
        section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act was a statutory fiction which was given
        effect to and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation had given effect to
        the deeming provision and thus acted in accordance with law. The position is not
        different, insofar the present proceedings are concerned. The relevant observations
        as made by the Supreme Court are required to be noted, which reads thus:

              9.       We have perused sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act
              and we find that it applies to admission to reserved seat in an educational
              institution and to appointment to a reserved post in the Government,
              local authorities, government corporations, government-aided
              institutions or cooperative societies and will not be attracted to the facts
              of the case. Instead, the consequences as provided in sub-section (4) of
              Section 10 of the 2000 Act will follow. Sub-section (4) of Section 10
              reads:
                    “10. (4)    Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
                    time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a
                    member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for
                    local authority, cooperative society or any statutory body on the seat
                    reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified
                    Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
                    Special Backward Category by procuring a false caste certificate as
                    belonging to such caste, tribe or class on such false caste certificate
                    being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any benefits
                    obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land
                    revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have
                    been terminated retrospectively.”

              The consequence is that the election of a person who has contested on a
              seat reserved for the aforementioned categories on false caste certificate as
              belonging to such caste, tribe or class “shall be deemed to have been
              terminated retrospectively”. The deeming provision in sub-section (4) of
              Section 10 of the 2000 Act is a statutory fiction which has to be given
              effect to and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has given
              effect to the deeming provision and has thus acted in accordance with
              law. ”



26.    Thus, considering the aforesaid position in law, there was no scope, much

less any ground available with the Mayor, to act upon a copy of the Advocate’s

notice addressed on behalf of the disqualified corporators. Any action of such

nature being resorted by the Mayor was required to wield the basic sanctity in law,

and more particularly when such action had a legal consequence on the

constitution of the Municipal Corporation. It could not have been taken so as to



                                      Page 22 of 27
Ajit
                                                                      901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



derail any lawful process being undertaken by the Corporation or which would

result in abdication of any statutory mandate and obligation to be achieved by the

Municipal Corporation, as the law would require.

27.    It is clear from the reading of the said letter of the advocate of such

Corporator(s) that they had taken a clear position that due to the disqualification of

their caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the numeric strength of

their group stood reduced from four to three for the purpose of election of

councillor, which according to them was based upon the disputed disqualification,

subject matter of challenge before this Court in the writ petitions instituted by

them. It is such contention of the disqualified councillors, which was accepted by

the Mayor in postponing the meeting convened to appoint/elect the nominated

councillors to be held today (11 September, 2026) at 5 p.m. In such context, we

note the contents of paragraph 7 of notice of the Advocate dated 03.09.2026, in

which the said Councillor(s) accepted the legal status to be that of a disqualified

Councillor(s), which reads thus:


        7. Due to the disqualification order passed against my client and another elected
        member, the numerical strength of my client's group has been reduced from 4 to
        3 for the purpose of election of Co-opted Corporators. The said reduction is
        directly based upon the disputed disqualification, which is already under
        challenge before the Hon'ble High Court.



28.      On the aforesaid conspectus, we clearly find that the Petitioners are not

incorrect in their contention that the Mayor has exceeded her power and authority

and/or has not acted in accordance with law or has acted for a collateral purpose in

taking the impugned decision, which has the effect of defeating the statutory



                                     Page 23 of 27
Ajit
                                                                      901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



mandate to nominate the councillors as per the requirement of Section 5(2)(b) read

with the provisions of the Rule 3 and 5 of the 2012 Rules (supra).


29.    There is certainly an obligation under the said statutory provisions that such

meeting to nominate the Councillors be held immediately after the expiry of one

month from the date of notification of the election results of the general elections,

to nominate the councillors as provided in Rule 3 of the 2012 Rules. We thus find

that it was not open, nay illegal, for the Mayor to take into consideration the

reasons as set out in the advocates notice, addressed to the Commissioner

requesting to postpone the SGBM, which was convened for today, merely because

the group of the disqualified corporators would suffer a prejudice on account of

their disqualification. This could never have been the reason to postpone a

statutory meeting. We are of the opinion that it is quite clear that the Mayor has

acted for a collateral purpose which cannot be recognized in law as held by the

Supreme Court in the case of Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel (supra), when it held as

follows:

            “18. ...In this regard, in our opinion, although the Mayor had the power to
            cancel the notice convening the meeting and to direct the secretary to issue a
            notice in that effect, the said power could be exercised only bona fide and
            for a purpose or purposes within the scope of the said Act. If the power was
            exercised mala fide or for a collateral purpose, the exercise of the power
            would certainly be bad.”

30.    Thus, what has been overlooked by the Mayor as also by the Municipal

Commissioner in mechanically acting on the recommendations on the orders of the

Mayor that the statutory mandate flowing from Section 5(2)(b) of the MMC Act

read with Rule 3 of the 2012 Rules stood defeated, as already the process of



                                    Page 24 of 27
Ajit
                                                              901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



nomination of the Councillors was excessively delayed by the Corporation, hence it

was of immediate concern for the Corporation to convene such meeting, which in

fact ought to have been convened within a period after one month of the

declaration of the results of the general elections of the Municipal Corporation.

Also, the reasons which were set out in the letters/notices as addressed by the

advocates of the disqualified Councillors, in our opinion, were ex facie contrary to

law and more particularly contrary to the provisions of Section 10(1C) of the

MMC Act (supra) read with Section 10(4) of the 2000 Act (supra), which brought

about the situation of a deemed disqualification of the elected councillors on their

caste certificate being invalidated.

31.    In our opinion, an ill-considered decision of the Mayor as the one

impugned in the present proceedings has serious adverse consequences which

affected the functioning of the Corporation. It is for such reason in any decision

making process being resorted by the Mayor or the Municipal Commissioner, a

cautious and careful approach is the necessity and above all, a sound statutory

decision being taken is the mandate of law, failing which, such decision would be

rendered arbitrary, colourable and/or a decision taken for a collateral purpose, more

particularly if the same is on political considerations.

32.    We thus find it quite strange that in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, the Mayor has acted inappropriately and/or for collateral reasons to

indefinitely postpone the SGBM, which was convened to be held today at 5:00

p.m. for appointing the nominated Councillors on the pretext of seeking a legal

opinion on the letters/notices of the advocates of the disqualified Councillors. The


                                   Page 25 of 27
Ajit
                                                             901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



reasons as set out by the Mayor in the impugned order/communication dated 4 th

September 2026 have no basis in law. This apart, we are quite surprised as to how

the Municipal Commissioner also acted mechanically and more particularly,

considering the substantive provisions of Section 5 of the MMC Act read with

Rules of 2012, which were staring at the Municipal Commissioner, knowing well

that the statutory mandate was required to be complied in a manner as recognized

by law, to appoint the nominated councillors.


33.    We are thus of the clear opinion that the impugned order dated 4 th

September 2026 issued by the Mayor and the consequent communication dated 7 th

September 2026 of the Municipal Commissioner are illegal and bad in law and

would be required to be quashed and set aside.


34.    As we are informed by Mr. Sakhare that no nominations were accepted on

7th September 2026 as per the notice dated 31 st August 2026, we are of the opinion

that it would be in the interest of justice that a fresh notice be issued by

Respondent No.3-Mayor to convene a meeting.


35.    In the light of the aforesaid discussion, Writ Petition would be required to

be partly allowed. It is allowed in the following terms:-


       (i)    The impugned communication dated 4 September 2026

       issued by the Mayor as also the consequent communication dated 7

       September 2026 issued by the Municipal Commissioner whereby the

       Special General Meeting is scheduled for today (11 September 2026)

       at 5 p.m., are quashed and set aside.


                                  Page 26 of 27
Ajit
                                                                                         901-WP-12116-2026.DOC



                                  (ii)    The Mayor and the Municipal Commissioner are directed to

                                  convene a fresh Special General Meeting to appoint nominated

                                  Councilors, by fixing a fresh date on which the nomination forms

                                  will be accepted.

                                  (iii)   Let the fresh procedure be completed in accordance with law,

                                  as ordered.


                        36.       Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.


                        37.       At this stage, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has stated that

                        in view of the Ganesh festival which would commence from 14 September, 2026,

                        instead of 10 days, the Mayor/Municipal Commissioner be permitted to convene

                        such meeting within a period of 15 days from today. We accept such request.

                        Accordingly, the meeting be convened within a period of 15 days from today i.e.,

                        on or before 25th September 2026.




                        (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                     (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)




Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge                         Page 27 of 27
Date: 12/09/2026 17:24:39 Ajit