Bombay High Court
VIJAY LAXMAN CHAUGULEversusURBAN DEVELOPMENT MINISTER STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court ordered Respondent No.2 to decide the pending grievance within 60 days and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Summary
Petitioner Vijay Laxman Chaugule filed a writ petition challenging the manner in which Motion No.13 was passed in a Municipal Corporation meeting on 20 March 2026. The petition sought judicial intervention while an appeal under Section 450A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, was pending before Respondent No.2. The Court, after hearing counsel, directed Respondent No.2 to decide the pending grievance within 60 days, emphasizing that no substantive view on the petitioner's claim was expressed. The Court then disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn on the petitioner's instructions. Consequently, the matter was left for the administrative authority to resolve within the stipulated period.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioner's grievance regarding the passage of Motion No.13?
- Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition while an appeal under Section 450A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, is pending.
- Whether a time limit can be imposed on Respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Municipal corporation
- Procedural irregularity
- Section 450A
- Withdrawal
- Time limit
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
TRUPTI
TRUPTI SADANAND
SADANAND BAMNE
BAMNE Date:
2026.08.20
13:07:19
+0530
1 927-wp-7968-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7968 OF 2026
Vijay Laxman Chaugule … Petitioner
versus
Urban Development Minister,
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
……
Mr.Rohan Mahadik with Mr.Bhavin Vora, Ms.Mekhala More,
Ms.Nikitha Butty and Mr.Nilesh Lonkar i/b. The Juris Partners for the
Petitioner.
Mr.O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.GP with Mrs.R.M.Shinde, AGP for the
Respondent -State.
Mr.Tejesh Dande with Mr.Sarvesh Deshpande for Respondent No.4.
Mr.Sudhakar Gangoda, Senior Clerk is present in the Court.
…...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 19 AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:
1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He
submits that the Application of the Petitioner dated 02.04.2026,
questioning the manner of passing of Motion No. 13 dated 12.03.2026 in
the meeting of the Municipal Corporation held on 20.03.2026, is
pending adjudication with Respondent No. 2.
Trupti S. Bamne
2 927-wp-7968-2026.odt
2. After we expressed our disinclination to entertain the
Petition at the behest of the minority group in the Municipal
Corporation, which is agitated against the resolution passed by the
majority, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner would withdraw this Petition if the pending Appeal under
Section 450A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, is
decided by Respondent No. 2 within the stipulated timeline.
3. The learned Addl.GP submits that such time may be granted
as this Court may deem fit and proper.
4. In view of the above, we direct that Respondent No. 2 shall
deal with the pending grievance of the Petitioner voiced vide his
Application dated 02.04.2026, by following the due procedure laid down
in law, within a period of 60 days from today. We expect a reasoned
order to be passed. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the claim of the Petitioners and his locus to challenge the
resolution, is kept open.
Trupti S. Bamne
3 927-wp-7968-2026.odt
5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off as
withdrawn, on instructions.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Trupti S. Bamne
Checking your session…