Bombay High Court

RAJKUMARI BRAMHAPRAKASH THAKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petitions are not premature; the corporation must evaluate the petitioners' reply on its merits before taking any adverse action.

Summary

The petitioners challenged notices issued on 17 June 2026 by a municipal corporation under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The corporation argued that the petitions were premature because the petitioners had filed a reply on 25 June 2026 and the corporation had not yet decided on that reply. The petitioners approached the High Court on 29 June 2026, before the corporation’s decision. The Court held that the petitions should not be dismissed as premature and directed the corporation to consider the petitioners’ reply on its own merits within two weeks. If the corporation decides against the petitioners, that decision must also be held in abeyance for two weeks before it can be acted upon.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petitions filed on 29 June 2026 are premature under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
Whether the corporation must consider the petitioners' reply before any adverse decision can be acted upon.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 260

Subjects

writ petition
Section 260
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
premature filing
administrative law
notice and reply

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39308-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…