Bombay High Court
SUDEEP DHARGALKARversusSTATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS
- Disposal
- Rule made absolute
Holding
The Final Delimitation Notification was issued in breach of the mandatory consultation provision of Section 10(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act and is therefore arbitrary and must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a Final Delimitation Notification issued by the State Election Commissioner under Section 10(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act, alleging that the SEC failed to conduct a proper consultation with the Government of Goa as mandated by the Act. The petition claimed that 77 objections to the draft delimitation were neither communicated to the Government nor considered meaningfully, rendering the notification arbitrary. The Court examined the statutory requirement of effective consultation, the timeline set by its earlier judgment, and the material exchanged between the SEC and the Government. It found that the SEC had not provided the Government with the objections, reports, maps, or its own orders, and had issued the notification without waiting for the Government’s response. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notification, directed the SEC to furnish all relevant material to the Government, and set new timelines for completing the consultation and subsequent steps.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Election Commission complied with the consultation requirement under Section 10(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act before issuing the Final Delimitation Notification.
- Whether the failure to transmit the 77 objections, ERO reports, and related material to the Government renders the notification arbitrary and violative of the Act.
- Whether the Court should set new timelines for the consultation process and subsequent delimitation steps.
Legislation cited
- Goa Municipalities Act — s. 10(3), 10(4), 10(5), 10(6)
Subjects
- delimitation
- municipal elections
- consultation
- arbitrariness
- Goa Municipalities Act
- Section 10
- Writ petition
- Article 226
- State Election Commission
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:2010-DB WP 1380.2026
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 2026
Mr. Sudeep Dhargalkar,
Son of Suresh Dhargalkar,
Indian National,
Aged 36 years,
Having address at H. No. C-3-94(40),
Driver Hill, Vasco Da Gama,
Goa, 403802. … Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Goa
Through its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.
2. State Election Commission
Through the Commissioner,
Altinho-Panaji, Goa.
3. Director of Municipal Administration,
Patto-Panaji, Goa. …Respondents
Mr. Shivan Desai with Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Devidas Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria
Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.
1 and 3.
Page 1 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
Mr. Somnath Karpe with Mr. Anand Shirodkar, Ms. R.
Shirodkar and Mr. Y. Karpe, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2026
The Goa State Commission for Backward
Classes Office at (Old) IPHB Complex,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa. … Applicant
IN
Nimesia Faleriro,
Aged 44 years,
H. No. 40, N.D Naik Road,
Chandrawado, Fatorda,
South Goa. … Petitioner
Versus
1) State of Goa Through the Chief
Secretary, Alto-Porvorim,
Bardez, Goa Email: [email protected]
2) The Goa State Election Commission,
Opp. Joggers Park Next to BSNL Tower,
Altinho, Panjim, Goa.
Email: [email protected]
3) The Director of Municipal Administration,
Department of Urban Development
Dempo Tower, 1st floor, Patto, Panaji,
Page 2 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
Goa Email: dir-dma.goa(@nic.in
4) The Goa State Commission for Backward
Classes Office at (Old) IPHB Complex,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa
…Respondents
Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H. D. Naik and
Ms. Neha Kholkar, Ms. Saicha Desai and Ms. Deepti
Kambli, Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Correia,
Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
Mr. Somnath Karpe with Mr. Anand Shirodkar and Ms. S.
Vaigankar, Advocates for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7TH OCTOBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 9TH OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (per Valmiki Menezes, J.):
1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request
of and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties,
the matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Additional
Government Advocate Ms. Maria Correia, waives service of
notice of for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in Misc. Civil Application
Page 3 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
No. 579/2026 and for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition
No. 300/2026. Learned Advocate Mr. Anand Shirodkar, waives
service of notice for Respondent No. 2 in Misc. Civil Application
No. 579/2026 and for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.
300/2026.
3. The challenge in the petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is to a Final Notification bearing
No. 4/93Delimitation/11-Mc/2026/Sec/Part2/299 dated
09.09.2026 issued by the State Election Commissioner
(Respondent No. 2) under Section 10(3) of the Goa
Municipalities Act (‘the Act’). The impugned notification
seeks to publish the Delimitation Map of Wards within 11
Municipal Councils, in which elections are required to take
place in accordance with the directions issued by this Court
in its Judgment dated 25.08.2026 passed in Writ Petition
Nos. 300/2026, 1069/2026, 1073/2026, 1071/2026 and
1072/2026.
4. The petition urges two primary grounds which are:
(a) That the impugned notification suffers from
arbitrariness and non-application of mind and has been
issued without following the mandatory statutory provisions
of consultation with the Government of Goa, prior to its
publication.
Page 4 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
(b) That the 77 objections to the draft Delimitation
of the Wards of the 11 Municipal Councils had neither
been considered by the State Election Commission
(SEC), nor was there any application of mind by the
SEC in its order rejecting all 77 applications; further
that the SEC had failed to submit to the Government
of Goa all 77 objections with orders passed thereon
and all relevant material which included the
communications/reports of the Electoral Registration
Officers (ERO)/Deputy Collector having jurisdiction
over the concerned municipal area and the
delimitation maps to enable the Government and the
SEC to have a meaningful consultation, as is required
by Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of the Act, rendering
the final notification of delimitation to be arbitrary.
5. The SEC filed its Affidavit dated 06.10.2026, in which
it has supported its action and contended that the Final
Delimitation notification was issued after all the relevant
material was communicated to the Government of Goa on
04.09.2026, and since there was no response until
09.09.2026 from the Government, in adherence to the
directions of this Court in its Judgment dated 25.08.2026
passed in Writ Petition Nos. 300/2026, 1069/2026,
Page 5 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
1073/2026, 1071/2026 and 1072/2026, it published the
impugned Notification.
According to the Affidavit, the SEC received 77
objections with respect to 9 Municipalities, namely Pernem,
Bicholim, Mapusa, Quepem, Curchore-Cacora, Margao,
Cuncolim, Canacona and Mormugao, which were
considered and disposed of. According to the Affidavit, the
objections broadly concerned geographical contiguity in the
process of delimitation. According to the Affidavit, prior to
passing orders on the objections, they were forwarded on
26.08.2026 to the ERO having jurisdiction over each of the
9 Municipal areas, and after physical verification at site, the
ERO prepared a report/map and submitted the same to the
SEC. After considering the report and the map written by
the EROs, the SEC passed its order under Section 10(3) of
the Act on 03.09.2026, which is recorded in a file noting
produced along with the Affidavit with an annexed Scrutiny
Report in which the order passed on each of the 77
objections is reflected.
6. The Government of Goa has filed an Affidavit in
Reply dated 06.10.2026 sworn by its Director of Municipal
Administration in which it has recorded the following facts
and contentions:
Page 6 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
(a) That in terms of the Judgment dated 25.08.2026
passed in Writ Petition Nos. 300/2026, 1069/2026,
1073/2026, 1071/2026 and 1072/2026, the SEC was
required to complete the process of consideration of
objections to the Draft delimitation along with the
process of consultation of the Government and publish
the final delimitation by 09.09.2026. That the
publication of the Draft Delimitation which was done
by the SEC on 24.07.2026, received 77 objections and
suggestions.
(b) That considering there are 77 objections and in
the light of the volume of objections raised by the
public, and in the light of the observations noted by
the Government in Note dated 04.09.2026, the
Government would require a period of 15 days to
consider all this material and effectively conclude the
consultation process.
7. The Petitioner, represented by Advocate Shri. Shivan
Dessai has advanced the following submissions:
(a) That the process of consultation contemplated
by Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of the Act, postulates
an effective consultation, involving exchange of
mutual view points of the parties and the examination
Page 7 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
of the relevant merits of the other parties point of view.
According to the Counsel, considering that the SEC
communicated the Final Delimitation to the
Government on 04.09.2026, which was a Friday, the
consultation contemplated in the provisions of the Act
was not effectively complied with since, without
waiting for any communication from the Government,
the Final Notification of Delimitation came to be
published on 09.09.2026, there being no effective
consultation process, in the facts of the case, the
impugned notification stands vitiated and must be
declared to suffer from arbitrariness and contrary to
the spirit of Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of the Act.
(b) That on the undisputed facts pleaded in the
petition and which are borne from the records of the
SEC and of the notings in the Government file, the
communication of the SEC to the Government dated
04.09.2026 containing the proposal for delimitation
for the purpose of consultation, was a truncated
communication; the communication did not contain
the 77 objections of the public to the draft notification,
nor did it contain the delimitation plans or the orders
passed on the objections, which were essential for the
Page 8 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
Government to consider in the consultative process. It
was submitted that for a meaningful consultation,
there ought to have been placing of all material in
possession with the SEC before the Government, and
consideration/exchange of mutual view points, which
were non existent. In fact, without waiting for any
communication from the Government, within two
effective working day, Saturday, 5th of September,
2026 and Sunday 6th of September, being non working
days, the Final Order and Delimitation Notification
was issued in contravention of Section 10 of the Act.
Reliance is placed on State of Jammu & Kashmir V/s
A. R. Zakki and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 548.
8. The learned Advocate General for the State of Goa
supporting the contentions raised in the petition submitted
that the Government, whilst having received a
communication dated 04.09.2026 from the SEC through the
Director of Municipal Administration was appraised of the
fact that there were 77 objections from the public, neither
was the decision on 77 objections communicated, nor was
the Draft Delimitation Map of each Municipality
communicated; the learned Advocate General contended
Page 9 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
that this fact was immediately communicated by the
Director of Municipal Administration on 22.09.2026 along
with the notings on the Government file raising its concerns
about the fact that no consultation would be possible
without the SEC placing before the Government its entire
file containing the objections of the public, the decisions
taken thereon, the reports of the EROs and the proposed
Delimitation Plans. The learned Advocate General
submitted that there is no dispute in the fact that all these
material was never communicated to the Government and
merely because this Court, in its Judgment dated 25.08.2026
passed in Writ Petition Nos. 300/2026, 1069/2026,
1073/2026, 1071/2026 and 1072/2026 had directed the SEC
to publish the Delimitation Notification by 09.09.2026, the
SEC ought not to have issued the notification without
completing the consultation process.
9. Whilst this petition was pending, the Goa State
Commission for Backward Classes (Commission for
Backward Classes) filed Miscellaneous Civil Application
No.579 of 2026 in the aforementioned Writ Petition No.300
of 2026 seeking extension of the timelines in the direction
to the Commission for furnishing its Report/Data under
Section 10(4) of the Act to the SEC. This application was
Page 10 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
heard along with the present petition. The application has
been opposed by the original Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
300/2026 and Writ Petition No. 1071/2026 who contended
in their reply that the application for extension of time
sought by the Commission for Backward Classes is ruse to
avoid holding Elections to the Municipal Councils prior to
the Assembly Elections which are likely to fall due on the
expiry of the term of the Goa Legislative Assembly.
According to the original Petitioner, in the said petition, the
application ought to be dismissed as granting the same
would amount to a fraud in the electoral process and the
mandate of Article 243 U of the Constitution of India.
10. We have considered the submissions of the Counsel
and the record of this petition and of the MCA No.579/2026
in WP 300/2026. From the material before us, the following
facts, which are stated in a tabular form are not in dispute:
DATE FACT
25.08.2026 This Court has disposed of Writ Petition No.
300/2026 and other connected petitions in
which Writ of Mandamus to direct the SEC
to complete the election process for 11
Page 11 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
Municipal Councils in the State of Goa was
sought. A challenge to the vires of an
ordinance, amending Section 10 of the Act
(now passed as a law by Legislative
Assembly) was also thrown in the petition
which was rejected by this Court’s
Judgment. Directions were issued therein to
the SEC to complete the process of inviting
objections to the Draft Delimitation of
Wards, pass orders thereon, prepare a draft of
the Final Delimitation, complete the
consultation process with the Government of
Goa and issue Final Delimitation notification
under Section 10(3) of the Act by
09.09.2026. The record reveals that the last
of the 77 objections received by the SEC
came is on 24.08.2026, a day prior to the
passing of the Judgment.
26.08.2026 The SEC forwarded the objections to
delimitation in 9 Municipal Councils, which
broadly concerns geographical contiguity in
Wards, to the EROs having jurisdiction over
those Municipal areas, to verify the site vis-
Page 12 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
a-vis the objections and to prepare their
reports and submit maps in relation to the
objections.
02.09.2026 The EROs completed their reports and
submitted the same to the SEC along with
Delimitation Maps after considering the
objections.
03.09.2026 The SEC, within 24 hours of receiving of the
report passed orders on 77 objections after
considering the reports.
04.09.2026 The SEC communicates to the Government,
through the Directorate of Municipal
Administartion, the draft of the Final
Delimitation for consultation under Section
10(3) of the Act. There is no denial in the
Affidavit of the SEC that the communication
was not accompanied by the 77 objections,
the Maps and Reports prepared by the EROs,
the orders passed on each objection and the
SEC’s consideration for such rejection, nor
the communication contained all other
Page 13 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
material in possession of the SEC, to enable
the Government to enter into consultation
with the SEC, based upon such material.
09.09.2026 The SEC proceeded to issue the Notification
of Final Delimitation, which is impugned in
the petition.
16.09.2026 The Government file contains a note of the
Minister of Urban Development raising the
following objections:
1. That 77 objections received by the SEC
and the manner in which they were
considered on the application of mind to the
objections, is not part of the file, which is
necessary for effective consultation.
2. That the Government requires to peruse
the complete file from the SEC to enable it to
apply its mind before participating in the
consultation process.
16.09.2026 The Government file then contained the
noting by the Chief Minister on similar lines,
Page 14 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
in addition to which specific notings are
made that the Delimitation Maps have not
been placed on the file.
22.09.2026 The Director of Urban
Development/Municipal Administration
communicates to the SEC the objections of
the Government along with the file noting.
11. From the above factual matrix, which is not in dispute,
we can clearly gather that the Government has not received
the entire material in possession of the SEC to complete the
consultation process contemplated under Section 10 of the
Act. We would expect, for a meaningful consultative
process, before finally notifying the delimitations of Wards,
the SEC to lay before the Government all the 77 objections,
the Reports and Maps prepared by the EROs and the
detailed orders passed by the SEC demonstrating
application of mind as to why the objections stood rejected.
None of this material was obviously placed before the
Government, and despite this Court having granted liberty
to apply in generally accepted circumstances to this Court
for extension of the deadline for each stage specified in
Judgment dated 25.08.2026, the SEC thought it necessary
Page 15 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
to, in a hot hurry, publish the Notification for Delimitation
without entering into any consultation with the
Government. These facts clearly demonstrate that the
impugned Notification has been published in complete
breach of provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act mandating
consultation with the Government. In A. R. Zakki (supra),
the Supreme Court was considering the meaning of the
expression “consultation” in a rule making process for
enacting rules of judicial service in the State of Jammu &
Kashmir. It has observed as under:
“17. While construing the expression "consultation" this
Court has laid down that though consultation does not
mean "concurrence", it postulates an effective
consultation which involves exchange of mutual
viewpoints of each other and examination of the relative
merits of the other point of view. Consultation or
deliberation is not complete or effective before the
parties thereto make their respective points of view
known to the other or others and discuss and examine
the relative merits of their views. [See:
Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court and
M.M. Gupta v. State of J & K²] In the context of Article
233 of the Constitution of India which requires that
appointments of persons to be, and the posting and
promotion of, District Judges in any State shall be made
by the Governor of the State in consultation with the
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such
State, this Court in M.M. Gupta case has observed as
under: (SCR p. 626: SCC p. 438, para 34)
normally, as a matter of rule, the recommendations made
by the High Court for the appointment of a District
Judge should be accepted by the State Government and
the Governor should act on the same. If in any particular
case, the State Government for good and weighty
reasons find it difficult to accept the recommendations of
Page 16 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
the High Court, the State Government should
communicate its views to the High Court and the State
Government must have complete and effective
consultation with the High Court in the matter. There can
be no doubt that if the High Court is convinced that there
are good reasons for the objections on the part of the
State Government, the High Court will undoubtedly
reconsider the matter and the recommendations made by
the High Court. Efficient and proper judicial
administration being the main object of these
appointments, there should be no difficulty in arriving at
a consensus as both the High Court and the State
Government must necessarily approach the question in
a detached manner for achieving the true objective of
getting proper District Judges for due administration of
justice."
Applying the aforementioned observations to the
specific facts stated above, we are of the opinion that in the
present case there has been neither communication of the
material by the SEC, which would form the basis and
substratum for the consultative process contemplated by
Sub Section 3 of Section 10, but instead of there being some
deliberation on the serious matter of delimitation of the
Wards, the SEC has chosen to completely ignore the
Government views or even await them, and has in a hot
hurry proceeded to publish the delimitation, in
contravention of the mandate of the Act.
12. We have also considered the material on the file of the
SEC which purports to be the orders passed under Section
10 rejecting 77 objections and considering the
Reports/Maps of the EROs. The Reports and Maps along
Page 17 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
with the 77 objections were placed before of SEC in the
form of the notes of the Assistant Director on 03.09.2026.
The note contains the objections, Municipality wise,
received by the SEC. The SEC, in a single paragraph, on
03.09.2026, states that he has analysed the Reports and
Maps considering the geographical contiguity, natural
boundaries, distance to polling booth and members of a
single household to be retained in the same Ward, and after
considering the objections, has partly accepted some
suggestions and rejected the rest.
13. The Scrutiny Report annexed to this “Order” of
rejection of objections, which is of the same date is also
before us. We have, on perusal of this Report observed that
it is in tabular form and states reasons in the last column of
the table, as to whether the objections are accepted or
rejected. The column only records the acceptance /part
acceptance or rejection of the objections without any
detailed reasons.
We do not wish to express any opinion as to whether
the procedure adopted by the SEC as observed in the
Scrutiny Report really reflects application of mind to the
objections or reports by the EROs, but leave it to the
Government of Goa to consider the views of the SEC on the
Page 18 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
objections, in whichever form they may be as part of the
consultation process. We, however, cannot help but observe,
that the SEC has disposed of 77 objections claiming that all
Reports of the EROs were also considered during this
process, within a period of 24 hours from being placed
before it.
14. Considering that there was no consultative process of
the nature required under Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of the
Act between the SEC and the Government, the impugned
Notification dated 09.09.2026 must be declared to be
arbitrary and without following the mandate of the said
provision. We consequently, quash and set aside the
impugned Notification bearing No. 4/93Delimitation/11-
Mc/2026/Sec/Part2/299 dated 09.09.2026 issued by the
State Election Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) and direct
the Respondent No. 2/SEC to forthwith communicate the
entire file along with 77 objections, Reports of the EROs,
the orders passed on the objections, all Delimitation Maps
or other material available with the SEC collected in
pursuance of exercise of powers under Sub Sections 1 to 3
of Section 10 of the Act, to the Government of Goa.
Immediately on receipt of the aforementioned material/file,
the Government of Goa shall consider the same and
Page 19 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
establish the process of consultation with the SEC, as
contemplated under Sub Section 3 of Section 10 of the Act
and complete this process by 26.10.2026, when the SEC
shall publish the Delimitation as contemplated under the
aforementioned provision.
15. Having considered the original timelines specified in
our Judgment dated 25.08.2026, for completion of the entire
process contemplated under the Goa Municipalities Act, for
elections to the 11 Municipal Council referred to therein,
and the reasons stated by the Commission for Backward
Classes, we, further issue the following directions. The
directions contained in Clauses (iv) to (x) of para 502 of
Judgment dated 25.08.2026 issuing specific timelines
therein shall now be advanced in the following terms:
Date Event
26.10.2026 State Election Commission shall complete
consideration of objections to draft
delimitation and publication of the final
delimitation under section 10(3)
26.11.2026 The Goa State Commission for Backward
Page 20 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
Classes shall furnish its report/data under
Section 10(4) to the State Election
Commission
30.11.2026 The State Election Commission shall
publish the draft reservation notification
under Section 10(5) on or before 30th
November 2026
30.12.2026 Last date for filing objections to the draft
reservations.
19.01.2027 The State Election Commission shall
complete their consideration, Government
consultation and publication of final
reservation under Section 10(6)
19.02.2027 Notification declaring elections
16. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) of
the petition with the directions issued in paragraphs Nos. 12
and 13 above. MCA No. 579 of 2026 stands disposed of
extending the timelines for the Commission for Backward
Classes to complete the process under Section 10 Sub
Section 4 of the Act as per the directions in paragraph
Nos.12 and 13 above. To facilitate the Commission for
Page 21 of 22
9th October, 2026
WP 1380.2026
backward classes to complete its Report/Data by
26.11.2026, we direct the Administrator of all 11 Municipal
Councils in the State of Goa to furnish all the data required
by the Commission and to assist the Commission by
providing such Officers or Staff to enable the completion of
the Report within the specified timeline. In the
circumstances of the case, we impose no costs.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 22 of 22
9th October, 2026
Checking your session…