Bombay High Court

YAKUB ISHAQU SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. A.G.P. HIGH COURT A.S. AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the appropriate remedy is an election petition under Section 16, not a writ, and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

Petitioner Yakub Ishaqu Shaikh challenged the election of Respondent No.5 as a municipal councillor, alleging disqualification under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, based on a notice of alleged unauthorized construction. The court observed that the notice was addressed to the Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, not directly to the respondent, and noted that the proper remedy for contesting a councillor's election is an election petition under Section 16 of the same Act. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum to seek disqualification. The petition was therefore dismissed, with the court indicating that all parties' rights and contentions remain open for appropriate proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is the correct remedy to challenge the disqualification of an elected municipal councillor under Section 10(1D).
Whether the petitioner can raise the disqualification issue in writ jurisdiction instead of filing an election petition.
Whether Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act provides the exclusive remedy for election disputes.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 10(1D), 16

Subjects

municipal election
disqualification
Section 10(1D)
Section 16
election petition
writ jurisdiction
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act

Judgment

                                                                  57-WP-4939-2026.doc



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

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4939 OF 2026

Yakub Ishaqu Shaikh                                     ...Petitioner
           Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through A.G.P.                 ...Respondents
High Court, A.S., Mumbai and Others
                                  ——————
Mr. Mohammad S. Mulla – Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Ravi P. Kadam – B Panel Counsel for State / Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare – Advocate for Respondent No. 5
Mr. Vishwanath Patil – Advocate through VC, a/w Mr. Someshwar Wale
and Mr. Jagdish Garud – Advocate for Solapur Municipal Corporation
                                  ——————
                                    Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                    Date      : October 06, 2026.
P. C. :


1.         By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the election of

Respondent No. 5 on the ground of disqualiication for being elected as

Councillor under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporations Act, 1949, premised on a notice which was issued as

regards unauthorised construction alleged to have been carried out by

the returned candidate.


2.         Perusal of the communication at page 86 would, irstly, indicate

that the same is addressed to Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur,

and not to Respondent No. 5.


SG Punde                             1 of 2
                                                                57-WP-4939-2026.doc



3.         The contention is that Respondent No. 5 is the President of the

said Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur.


4.         Be that as it may. Considering the provisions of Section 16 of the

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as the challenge is to the

disqualiication of Respondent No. 5, who is declared to be elected as a

Councillor and whose election is sought to be disputed, the Petitioner

has the remedy of iling an Election Petition under the provisions of

Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.


5.         In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ

jurisdiction. The Petition stands dismissed.


6.         Needless to clarify that all the rights and contentions of all the

parties are kept open.




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




SG Punde                             2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…