UDAYSINH MARUTI PATIL AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                              37-WP-3805-2026.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2026

Udaysinh Maruti Patil And Another   ...Petitioners.
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents.
                            ——————
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil with Mr. Rushikesh R.
Chavan, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh with Mr. Siddharth Karpe, Mr. Ketan Joshi, i/b. Mr. Akshay
Shinde, for the Respondent No.3.
                                 ——————
                                    Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date     : August 17, 2026.
P. C. :

1.        By the present petition, the challenge is to the Resolution No. 172

dated 27th July 2026 passed by the Special General Body of the

Respondent No.3-Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation.

2.        The contention of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the Petitioner is that the Standing Committee had

rejected the estimate for the purpose of issuing the contract for door-

to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste.               He

submits that despite the Standing Committee rejecting the estimate on

15th July 2026, the said subject was taken by the Special General Body of

the Respondent No.3-Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation. He submits




Gaikwad RD                          1 of 4
                                                       37-WP-3805-2026.doc


that on 27th July 2026, in the Special General Body meeting, it was

resolved that the General Body is supreme and there was no necessity

of seeking approval to the estimate from the Standing Committee. He

submits that the estimate of about Rs.22 Crores came to be approved

by the Special General Body and the tender was issued on 7 th August

2026 and the bids were opened on 17th August 2026.

3.       Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate has taken this Court

through the statutory provisions of Sections 73, 77, 79 and Section 96 of

the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (‘MMC Act’) and

would submit that before the contract is entered into in terms of

Section 73(c) of the MMC Act, the approval of the Standing Committee

is required, particularly considering that the contract is for a sum of

about Rs.22 Crores. He has further drawn support from the decision of

the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Nandkishor Ganesh Joshi v.

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan & Dombivali & Ors., 1

which interpreted the provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act.

4.       Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.3 Corporation would raise a preliminary objection

contending that the Petitioner had, on 4 th August 2026, approached the

State Government under Section 451 of the MMC Act for challenging

the resolution which is also impugned in the present petition. He would

1    (2004) 11 SCC 417.


Gaikwad RD                      2 of 4
                                                        37-WP-3805-2026.doc


further submit that the Special General Body is empowered to approve

the estimate. He submits that the reliance placed on Section 96 of the

MMC Act is misconceived as the Standing Committee is required to

consider the estimate and proposal of the Commissioner and add or

modify therein and frame a budget estimate, which is to be laid before

the Corporation. He submits that in any event, insofar as the contract is

concerned, considering the provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act,

the contract will be placed before the Standing Committee.

5.     Mr. Sakhare would submit that in event there is compliance of

Section 73(c) of the MMC Act and the contract is placed before the

Standing Committee, the Standing Committee can then take an

appropriate decision.

6.     We have considered the submissions.

7.     The issue as to whether under Section 96 of the MMC Act, the

approval of the Standing Committee was required or not for the

estimate is not required to be considered by this Court in this petition

considering that it is now conceded on the basis of the statutory

provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act that the contract, which is

required to be entered into pursuant to the tender, which has been

issued, will be placed before the Standing Committee.

8.     The decision on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sakhare

contemplates a situation under Section 73(c) of the MMC Act as regards


Gaikwad RD                      3 of 4
                                                                                   37-WP-3805-2026.doc


                        the proposal for grant of approval of the contract. In that case, the

                        Honorable Apex Court has analyzed the statutory provisions to hold

                        that although a Commissioner is entitled to execute contracts on behalf

                        of the Corporation, a statutory embargo is placed by reason of Clause

                        (c) of Section 73 of the MMC Act, which requires prior approval of the

                        Standing Committee. The interpretation of Section 73(c) of the MMC

                        Act by the Honorable Apex Court would require the Commissioner to

                        place the contract to be entered into, pursuant to the bids, which were

                        accepted, before the Standing Committee.

                        9.       In view thereof, the petition is disposed of in view of the accepted

                        position. It need not be clariied that before the contract is entered

                        into, as per the statutory provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act, the

                        Commissioner is required to place the contract before the Standing

                        Committee for approval.

                        10.      The disposal of the present petition will not come in the way of

                        the application under Section 451 of the MMC Act, which is pending

                        before the State Government and the same to be decided on its own

                        merit.

                        11.      The petition stands disposed of with the above observation.



                         [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                        [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.08.18
           20:30:20
           +0530

                        Gaikwad RD                          4 of 4