Bombay High Court

AMOL MADHUKAR KHILLAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the writ petitions were premature and directed the corporation to consider the petitioners' reply on its merit within two weeks.

Summary

The petitioners challenged notices issued on 17 June 2026 by a municipal corporation under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. They filed replies on 25 June 2026, but the corporation argued that the writ petitions were premature because a decision on the replies was still pending. The High Court examined whether the court could entertain the petitions before the corporation’s decision. It held that the petitions were indeed premature and ordered the corporation to consider the petitioners’ reply on its merits within two weeks. If the corporation later decides against the petitioners, that decision must not be acted upon for another two weeks. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the corporation.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petitions filed on 29 June 2026 are premature given that the corporation has not yet decided on the petitioners' reply.
Whether the court can intervene before the corporation’s decision under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 260

Subjects

writ petition
Section 260
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
premature filing
municipal corporation notice
court direction
disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39307-DB


                                                1                   933-934-935.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            933 WRIT PETITION NO. 6659 OF 2026

                                    AMOL MADHUKAR KHILLARE
                                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Vishal P. Bakal, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 And 4
                                                 ...
                            934 WRIT PETITION NO. 6673 OF 2026

                              RAJKUMARI BRAMHAPRAKASH THAKUR
                                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Vishal P. Bakal, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 And 4
                                                 ...
                            935 WRIT PETITION NO. 6674 OF 2026

                                    SATISH MADHAVRAO PINGLE
                                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. Vishal P. Bakal, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 And 4
                                                 ...

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                       DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           Challenge in these petitions is to the notices dated

              17/06/2026,    issued   by   respondent   No.4   Corporation     to     the

              petitioners, under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal




              SVH
                                   2                   933-934-935.odt


Corporations Act, 1949.


2.          By   filing   affidavit-in-reply   the   Corporation         has

contended that the petitions are premature. Notices were issued on

17/06/2026 and reply is submitted by the petitioners on 25/06/2026.

Thereafter, immediately on 29/06/2026, without waiting for the

decision the petitioners have approached this Court. Statement is

made in the affidavit-in-reply that the reply submitted by the

petitioners along with the documents, shall be considered on it’s

own merit and then the decision would be taken by the Corporation.


3.          In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed

of by directing respondent Corporation to consider the reply

submitted by the petitioners on it’s own merit, within a period of

two weeks from today. In case the Corporation decides against the

petitioners, the said decision shall not be acted upon for a period of

two weeks from the date of said decision.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)               (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…