SHIVAMMA YALLAPPA POTENAVARUversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SOLAPUR

                                                                   906-WP-989-2026

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 989 OF 2026


Shivamma Yallappa Potenavaru                                                 ...Petitioner
     Versus
The District Collector, Solapur                                            ...Respondent

                                    ——————
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh (Through VC) i/b. Adv. Umesh Gite, Advocate for
respondent no.4.

Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for respondent State.
                                    ——————

                                        Coram :       Madhav J. Jamdar &
                                                      Pravin S. Patil, JJ.

                                        Date      :   March 18, 2026.

P. C. :

1.        Heard Mr. Tajane, learned Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. Mali,

learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – State; and Mr. Deshmukh,

learned Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

2.        The Petitioner has sought relief in terms of prayer clause (a), which

reads thus:

              “a) Rule be issued. Record and proceedings of the case be called
             for and after examining the legality validity and propriety
             thereof by appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ be


adn                                      1 of 3
                                                                  906-WP-989-2026

          issued and the Government Resolution, general part I-A Pune
          Divisional Supplementary issued by the Collector Solapur dated
          23.12.2025 declaring Respondent No. 4 Anjali Yoginath
          Bajaramath as President of Maindargi Municipal Council in
          Solapur Municipal General Election 2025 held on 02.12.2025
          from schedule caste (woman) category be quashed and set
          aside.
3.    At the outset, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.

4, submits that in view of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and

Sub Section 1 of Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils,

Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, “the

Municipal Council Act”), the present Petition is not maintainable.

4.    Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India reads thus: 243ZG
             Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, —
          “(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
          constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies,
          made or purporting to be made under article 243ZA shall not be
          called in question in any court;
          (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question
          except by an election petition presented to such authority and in
          such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the
          Legislature of a State.”
      Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Municipal Council Act reads as

under:

          “(1)       No election, [***] or nomination of a Councillor may
          be called in question, except by petition presented to the District
          court, by a candidate at the election or by any person entitled to
          vote at the election, within ten days from the date of publication
          of the names of the Councillors in the Official Gazette under
          Sections 19 or 20, as the case may be];”

5.    Thus it is clear that election of a councellor cannot be called in

question, except by       petition presented to the District Court, by a

candidate at the election or by any person entitled to vote at the election.



adn                                   2 of 3
                                                       906-WP-989-2026

6.     In view of the aforesaid    bar, the present Writ Petition is not

maintainable and is accordingly disposed of on that ground.

7.     It is clarified that all contentions on merits of the matter are

expressly kept open.

[Pravin S. Patil, J.]                               [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




adn                               3 of 3