Bombay High Court

SUFIYAN IBRAMHIM JINversusTHE COMMISSIONER NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION NASHIK AND ORS

Decided: 29 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the Municipal Commissioner and Mayor must convene the required meeting and appoint the nominated councillors within six weeks as mandated by Section 5 of the MMC Act and the 2012 Rules.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) to convene a special general body meeting and appoint ten nominated/co‑opted councillors as required by Section 5(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Rule 3 of the 2012 Rules. The election results were declared on 16 January 2026, but the corporation failed to hold the meeting within the one‑month period prescribed by Rule 3. The Court examined the statutory framework, noting that the Commissioner must recommend names after consulting party leaders and the corporation must act on those recommendations, and referred to the earlier decision in Rajesh Vadhrya v. Ulhasnagar MC which held that non‑compliance is illegal. It also observed that the Mayor’s postponement was for a collateral purpose and therefore invalid. Consequently, the Court ordered the NMC to hold the meeting and appoint the nominated councillors within six weeks, keeping all parties’ contentions open. The petition was disposed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Nashik Municipal Corporation violated the statutory requirement to convene a meeting within one month of election results for the appointment of nominated councillors.
Whether the Mayor’s postponement of the meeting was for a collateral purpose and thus illegal.
Whether the court can compel the Commissioner and the corporation to appoint the nominated councillors under Section 5 of the MMC Act and the 2012 Rules.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 5(2)(b)
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012 — s. Rule 3, Rule 5

Subjects

Article 226
nominated councillors
municipal corporation
statutory duty
special general body meeting
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
municipal law

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
15-WP 12456-26.DOC
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.10.05
16:31:29
+0530

Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12456 OF 2026

Sufiyan Ibrahim Jin ...Petitioner
Vs
The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
_________

Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for NMC.
Ms. Manuja Pingale for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for State.
_________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026.

P.C.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

“a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to call for special
general body meeting forthwith and commence the procedure to nominate
10 persons as nominated / co-opted Councilors to the General Body of
Nashik Municipal Corporation under Section 5 sub-section 2 (b) of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 read with Rule 3 of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of
Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012;

b. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to complete the
procedure for appointment of 10 nominated / co-opted Councillors to the
General Body of Nashik Municipal Corporation and issue notification in
the official Gazette to that effect before 17 June 2026.”

2. Mr. Sakhadeo, learned counsel for respondent no.1/NMC, also stated that

he had taken instructions and the Principal Municipal Secretary had addressed a

letter dated 28 September 2026 setting out the appropriate steps which would

Page 1 of 5
29 September 2026
15-WP 12456-26.DOC

now be taken. The said letter is taken on record and marked “X” for

identification.

3. At the outset, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that the elections of Nashik Municipal Corporation were held on 15

January 2026 and the results were declared on 16 January 2026. He has drawn

our attention to the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and

Appointment of Nominated Councilors) Rules, 2012 (for short, “the said Rules”).

Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that 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. The said rule is required to be noted which 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.”

4. Further Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for ‘Nomination of councillors’

which is required to be noted which reads thus:-

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

Page 2 of 5
29 September 2026
15-WP 12456-26.DOC

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.”

5. It is thus clear that, for the purpose of nominating Councilors, it is the

Commissioner, who, after consulting the Leader of the House, the Leader of the

Opposition, and the 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, is required to recommend the names of suitable persons to the

Corporation for nomination as nominated councillors. The names of the persons

so recommended shall not exceed the number of councillors to be nominated in

accordance with Rule 3. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the Corporation

shall, after considering the recommendations made by the Commissioner,

nominate the councillors. The proviso thereto ordains that, if the Corporation

decides not to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner with respect to a
Page 3 of 5
29 September 2026
15-WP 12456-26.DOC

person so recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor.

6. It appears from the record that, although Rule 3 required a meeting to be

convened within one month of the election of the Municipal Corporation for the

appointment of nominated councillors, no such meeting was convened within the

stipulated period. It is in these circumstances, the present petition came to be

filed.

7. Mr. Deshmukh has also brought to our notice that the position of law was

considered by this Bench in the decision in Rajesh Vadhrya & Anr. Versus

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors., Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2026,

decided on 11 September 2026, wherein, in such context, the Court, upon

considering the provisions of the said Rules and the provisions of the Act, and

more particularly Section 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949

(“MMC Act”), held as under:-

“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 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.
……
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

Page 4 of 5
29 September 2026
15-WP 12456-26.DOC

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.”

8. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the Mayor, who

is represented before us by Ms. Pingale, learned counsel for respondent no.2, as

also the Municipal Commissioner, who is represented by Mr. Sakhadeo, are

required to take the necessary steps as the law would mandate to appoint

nominated councillors. The appointment must be made in accordance with

Section 5 of the MMC Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules (supra). Let such action

in accordance with law be taken within a period of six weeks from today. All

contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

9. As the parties have taken a fair stand, we have not delved on the issue of

the delay which has taken place at the hands of the Commissioner or the Mayor.

We keep open all contentions of the parties on any such issues.

10. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

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

Page 5 of 5
29 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.