Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur

Order Date: Pronounced on 19 October 2026 (Reserved on 29 September 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Deepak Raghunath Dhere (age 59, businessman, voter in Ward No. 14, Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation). Respondents – (1) State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Urban Development; (2) Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division; (3) Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation (through the Commissioner); (4) The Commissioner, Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation; (5) The Municipal Secretary, Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation; (6‑11) Six nominated councillors – Sanjay Mahadev Kamble, Imran Bashir Haveri, Imran Salim Bagwan, Prakash Dnyanba Dattawade, Avinash Gulchand Kamble, Maruti Yellappa Patharwat.
  • Nature of Petition: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the nomination of the six nominated councillors as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (“MMC Act”) and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules 2012.
  • Grounds of Challenge: (a) All six nominees belong to a single category (g) of Rule 4, violating the requirement for professional diversity; (b) alleged lack of requisite qualifications within that category; (c) mechanical, rushed processing of nomination and recommendation on 20 February 2026, showing non‑application of mind.
  • Procedural History: Election for 65 councillors held on 15 January 2026; General Body Meeting convened on 20 February 2026 to consider nominations; Commissioner recommended names after consulting party leaders; Corporation passed Resolution No. 6 on 20 February 2026 approving the nominations; Gazette notification issued on 25 February 2026.
  • Objections Raised: Deputy Commissioner of Corporation objected to maintainability, citing Section 16 of MMC Act as exclusive remedy. Respondents 6‑11 also raised preliminary objection on maintainability. Counsel for petitioner argued that Section 16(1) allows challenge of qualification of nominated councillors and that writ jurisdiction is appropriate where both qualification and validity of nomination are in dispute.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioner's counsel cited Section 5(2)(b) of MMC Act, earlier Rules 2007, and argued that despite amendment, the intent of the statute is to permit scrutiny of nominated councillors. Respondent counsel relied on Full Bench decision in Anil (Vidyarthi) Chanderlal Ailani v. State of Maharashtra and various Supreme Court precedents, asserting that election petitions are the sole remedy and that writ jurisdiction is barred by Article 243‑ZG.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the constitutional bar under Article 243‑ZG, the statutory bar under Section 16 of MMC Act, and the Full Bench precedent which equated the nomination process with an election. It held that the distinction drawn by the petitioner between qualification of elected and nominated councillors is untenable; both can be challenged only via an election petition. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that writ jurisdiction could be invoked for procedural irregularities in nomination.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the rule, and held that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an election petition under Section 16 of the MMC Act. No merits of the petition were adjudicated.

Topics: Municipal Nomination, Election Petition