BHIMRAO HANUMANT REDE PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:8065-DB

                                                                        13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc


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

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3990 OF 2026

               Bhimrao Hanumant Rede-Patil.                              ...Petitioner.
                       Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others.                      ...Respondents.
                                           ——————
               Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, Abhang M. Suryawanshi and Ankita Chindage for the
               Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
               Mr. Rutik Kashid for the Respondent No.3.
               Mr. Kedar Lad, Poonam Bhotre and Indrayani Patil for the Respondent No. 4.
                                                ——————
                                                  Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                              Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                  Date      : August 25, 2026.
               P. C. :

               1.         Heard.

               2.         By this petition, the Petitioner impugns the notice dated 14 th

               August 2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 calling for special meeting

               on 19th August 2026 for the purpose of passing no confidence motion

               against the Petitioner.

               3.         The Petition came to be filed on 18 th August 2026 with the

               contention that the present Petitioner has been declared elected as

               councillor of Respondent No.3. It is pleaded that suddenly on 17 th

               August 2026, the Petitioner acquired knowledge from his other

               councillor that notice dated 14th August 2026 was issued to her at 3.15




               Patil-SR                            1 of 5
                                                           13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc


p.m. for the special meeting called on 19 th August 2026 for the purpose

of passing no confidence motion under Section 55-1A of the

Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial

Townships Act, 1965 (for short, “Nagar Panchayats Act”]. The Petition

specifically pleads that the Petitioner has not received and was not

served with notice dated 14th August 2026 and therefore the petition

came to be filed.

4.         In light of said pleadings in the petition, by order of 18 th August

2026, this Court restrained the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from

conducting the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion

against the Petitioner and listed the petition for hearing today. Today,

an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 -

President of Mahalung-Shripur Nagar Panchayat. It is stated that being

the President, notice was issued to all the councilors including the

Petitioner on 14th August 2026 convening the special meeting at 11.00

a.m. for the purpose of putting to vote a resolution of no confidence

motion submitted against the Petitioner. It is pleaded that notice was

published and affixed on the official notice board of Nagar Panchayat

office and simultaneously notice dated 14 th August 2026 came to be

issued to the Petitioner, which fact has been suppressed from this

Court. Copies of notice, publication of notice on the notice board of

Nagar Panchayat office as well as the report of the peon who had gone


Patil-SR                              2 of 5
                                                          13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc


to effect service on the councillors including the present Petitioner is

annexed to the affidavit-in-reply.

5.         Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would

dispute the contents of affidavit-in-reply and would submit that on 14 th

August 2026, the Petitioner was at Tuljapur and therefore report of the

peon is incorrect. He would further submit that under the provisions of

Section 55-1A read with Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act, a fresh

notice will be required to be issued as it speaks of 3 days’ clear notice of

special meeting and the meeting which was scheduled on 19 th August

2026 has not been conducted and therefore fresh notice is required.

6.         Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4

would submit that report of the peon of Respondent No.3 would

evidence the service of notice upon the Petitioner, who has refused to

receive the notice. He would submit that the notice was also published

on the notice board and therefore the Petitioner cannot feign ignorance

of the said notice.

7.         We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

8.         Considering the specific case pleaded by the Petitioner, that there

was no service of notice of meeting, which was scheduled on 19 th

August 2026, this Court granted ad-interim relief restraining the

Respondents from holding the special meeting. The affidavit of the

Respondent No. 3 and 4 specifically pleads about the notice being


Patil-SR                             3 of 5
                                                      13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc


issued and published on the notice board of Nagar Panchayat as well as

the service upon all the councillors, including the present Petitioner.

The report of the peon which is at page 35 speaks about the service on

other councillors and refusal by the Petitioner. Pertinently, one of the

councillors, namely, Ms. Swati Late, who has received the notice, from

whom the Petitioner acquired knowledge as admitted in the petition,

was also served by the same peon, which is evident from the report at

page 35. There is no reason why the peon of the Nagar Panchayat

would submit an incorrect report and while everyone else has been

served, the Petitioner would not be served.

9.         The contention of Mr. Chavan that on 14 th August 2026, the

Petitioner was at Tuljapur cannot be accepted for the reason that in the

petition it is specifically pleaded in paragraph 4 that the Petitioner

received information from Ms. Swati Late that the notice dated 13 th

August 2026 was issued to her on 14 th August 2026. In light of the

knowledge of the Petitioner about the service of notice on 14 th August

2026, in event the Petitioner was in Tuljapur at that time, the Petitioner

would have specifically pleaded that on the said date when the notice

was served on other councillors, the Petitioner could not have been

served as he was at Tuljapur. Petition is silent on that aspect. The

contention that 3 days’ clear notice is required to be given as per the

provisions of Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act is unacceptable as


Patil-SR                          4 of 5
                                                         13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc


there was compliance of Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act and it

is only by reason of the intervention of this Court, that the said meeting

could not be held. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had complied with the

statutory provisions and meeting came to be postponed by reason of

the order of this Court. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to accept

the submission of Mr. Chavan that a fresh notice is again required to be

given of 3 clear days. It is open for the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to hold

the meeting as it is now evident that the notice was served upon the

Petitioner who has refused to accept the same and therefore it is a valid

service. As the contention of Mr. Chavan is that requisition of meeting

and the charges levelled against the Petitioner which is to be discussed

in the special meeting has not been served upon the Petitioner, the

Respondent No. 3 and 4 to serve copy of the same to the Petitioner by

the end of the day.

10.        In the light of above, there is no merit in the petition. Petition

stands dismissed.



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




Patil-SR                             5 of 5