1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2026

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3755 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2788 OF 2026

Shailesh Toluram Meshram

Aged-40 years, Occ.; Business,

Having address at : Azad Nagar,

Tumsar, Tal: Tumsar, Dist:

Bhandara – 441912 ...Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra,

Through its Chief Secretary,

Urban Development Department, Having its

official address at:

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

2. Divisional Commissioner,

Nagpur Division, having his

Office address at: Old Secretary

Building, Samaj Kalyan Office road,

Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.

3. District Collector Bhandara,

Having his official address at:

Room No.17, Second Floor, Minority

Hostel Building, Muslim Library Chouk,

Bhandara, Maharashtra - 441904.

4. Tumsar Municipal Council,

Through its President, having

Its official address at: Gandhi Nagar,

Near Tehsil office, Tumsar - 441 912. ...Respondents

AND

Page 1 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3761 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026

Pramod Narayan Titirmare

Aged-49 years, Occ.; Business,

Having address at : Shriram Nagar,

Tumsar, Tal: Tumsar, Dist:

Bhandara – 441912 ...Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra,

Through its Chief Secretary,

Urban Development Department,

Having its official address at:

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

2. Divisional Commissioner,

Nagpur Division, having his

Office address at: Old Secretary

Building, Samaj Kalyan Office road,

Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.

3. District Collector Bhandara,

Having his official address at:

Room No.17, Second Floor, Minority

Hostel Building, Muslim Library Chouk,

Bhandara, Maharashtra - 441904.

4. Tumsar Municipal Council,

Through its President, having

Its official address at: Gandhi Nagar,

Near Tehsil office, Tumsar - 441 912. ...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST)NO. 16159 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2026

Abhishek Jagdish Karemore ...Applicant

In The matter between:

Page 2 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

Pramod Narayan Titirmare … Petitioners

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

_______

Mr. Abhijeet Joshi i/b. Mr. Shantanu Patil, for Petitioner in both WPs.

Smt. Neha S. Bhide GP, a/w. Shri. O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. a/w.

Smt. P.N.Diwan, AGP, for Respondent in both Wps.

Mr. Rushikesh Kekane, for Applicant in IAST/16159/2026 In WP/2787/26.

_______

CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

RESERVED ON:22

nd

JUNE 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 25

th

JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT: (PER : AARTI SATHE, J )

1. These are two Writ Petitions which raise a challenge to the process of

appointment of nominated Councillor in the Tumsar Municipal Council more

particularly letter/communication dated 11

th

February 2026 and 12

th

February

2026 issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively have been challenged.

2 As the reliefs prayed for in both the petitions are similar, this common

order can conveniently dispose of both the petitions. The substantive reliefs which

are prayed for in Writ Petition No.2788 of 2026 (Meshram) and Writ Petition No.

2787 of 2026 (Titirmare) are as follows: -

COMMON/SIMILAR PRAYERS IN BOTH:

(a) that Rule be issued;

(b) that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of

certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the

impugned letters/communications dated 11'" February 2026 and 12th February

Page 3 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

2026 issued by the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively and all consequential

actions and proceedings arising therefrom;

(c) that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the like nature directing

Respondent No.3 to issue the Official Gazette in accordance with law and to give

effect to the validly completed nomination process dated 16'" January 2026;

(d) that this Hon'ble High Court in the absence of any legal impediment, be pleased

to declare that the nomination process concluded on 16m January 2026 and the

appointments made pursuant thereto including the appointment of the Petitioner as

the Nominated Councillor of the Tumsar Municipal Council, are valid and binding

in law;

(e) that pending the hearing and final disposal this Hon'ble high Court be pleased to

stay the implementation, effect and operation of the impugned

letters/communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12' February 2026 issued by

the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 respectively and all consequential steps taken pursuant

thereto;

(f) that pending the hearing and final disposal this Hon'ble high Court be pleased to

stay the implementation, effect and operation of the letter dated 12' February 2026,

annexed at"Exhibit O", issued by the Respondent No.3, restraining the Respondents

from conducting any fresh nomination process pursuant to the impugned

communications;

(g) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (e) and (f) above be

granted;

(h) cost of the Petition be provided for;

(i) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the interest of justice.

3. For convenience we refer to the facts in the Writ Petition No. 2788 of

2026 (Meshram) which would suffice in adjudicating the dispute in the present

proceeding. We also note that except for certain dates and names of the Petitioners.

The facts in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 (Titirmare) are similar:

i) On 21st December 2016, Respondent No. 1 issued a Government Circular

clarifying the powers of the President of the Municipal Councils and the procedure

for appointment of nominated Councillors to Municipal Councils. Thereafter, the

State Election Commission, Maharashtra, vide its order dated 29th October 2025,

announced the elections to the Municipal Councils in the State of Maharashtra.

Page 4 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3 – Collector, by order dated 5th November

2025, declared the General Election Programme, 2025 for the Tumsar Municipal

Council.

ii) On 2nd December 2025, the State Election Commission, Maharashtra revised

the election programme for the Municipal Council Elections pursuant to the order

passed by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7508 of 2025.

iii) The date fixed for declaration of the election results was 21st December 2025.

Accordingly, on 21st December 2025, the results of the General Elections to the

Tumsar Municipal Council were duly declared in accordance with law. Consequent

upon the declaration of the results, Respondent No. 3 – Collector, vide order dated

23rd December 2025, which was published in the Official Gazette of the State of

Maharashtra, notified the name of the newly elected President as well as the list of

duly elected Councillors of the Tumsar Municipal Council.

iv) It is the Petitioners’ contention that the Tumsar Municipal Council consists of

25 elected Councillors and one directly elected President, thereby making the total

strength of the Municipal Council 26 members. It is further the Petitioners’

contention that, pursuant to the declaration of the election results on 21st

December 2025, the party-wise composition of the Tumsar Municipal Council was

as follows:

a) 01 Directly Elected President - Independent.

b) 25 elected Councillors: the party-wise strength being as under:

i. Bhartiya Janata Party - 10 Seats;

ii. Nationalist Congress Party - 10 seats;

iii. Indian Nation Congress - 3 seats;

iv. Shiv Sena - 1 seat;

Page 5 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

v. Independent - 1 seat.

v) On account of the aforesaid election results, post-election alliances came to be

formed amongst the newly elected President and Councillors of the Tumsar

Municipal Council. Consequently, the composition of the Council was as follows

a) Bhariya Janata Party Samarthit Gat:

Comprising 11 Councillors (BJP - 1 and Independent - 1), having Gat

leader namely Mr. Sachin Babulal Bopche;

b) Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi:

Comprising of Councillors (NCP - 06) having Gat leader namely Mr.

Gaurishankar Subhashchandra Karemore;

c) Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi:

Comprising 05 Councillors (NCP - 2 and INC - 3), having Gat leader

namely Mrs. Ashwini Pravin Thote;

d) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi:

Comprising 04 Councillors (President - 1, NCP - 2 and Shiv Sena - 1)

having Gat leader namely Mr. Sagar Manohar Gabhane.

vi) On 1st January 2026, the newly elected President formally assumed charge of

the office of the President of the Tumsar Municipal Council. Thereafter,

Respondent No. 3 – Collector, vide communication/letter dated 6 January 2026,

directed Respondent No. 4 – the President, to convene and conduct the first

General Meeting of the Council. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 issued a

notice dated 7 January 2026 to all the newly elected Councillors convening the

first General Meeting to be held on 16 January 2026.

vii) By the aforesaid notice, Respondent No. 4 also initiated the statutory process

for the appointment of nominated Councillors and declared the programme for the

election of the Vice-President of the Tumsar Municipal Council.

Page 6 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

viii) The last date and time prescribed for submission of nominations was 15

January 2026 at 2:30 p.m. On the same day, i.e., 15 January 2026, Respondent

No. 3 – the Collector, vide a communication of even date addressed to Respondent

No. 4 – the President, forwarded the list of candidates found eligible upon scrutiny

for the purpose of nomination as Councillors.

ix) It is the Petitioners’ contention that Clause 3.6 of the Government Circular

dated 21 December 2016 prescribes the number of Councillors who may be

nominated under the statutory framework. The said framework is governed by the

provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats

(Qualifications and procedure for Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules,

2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

x) According to the Petitioners, the determination of the number of nominated

Councillors is required to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the

said Rules and the aforesaid Government Circular dated 21

st

December 2016.

xi) In pursuance of the provisions of the said Rules, the maximum permissible

number of nominated Councillors for the Tumsar Municipal Council is three (3).

It is the Petitioners’ contention that, having regard to the post-election alliances as

they existed at the relevant time, and for the purpose of determining the

entitlement of each alliance to the appointment of nominated Councillors, the

strength quotient of each alliance stood as under:

a) Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat/Gat/Group: 1.26;

b) Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi: 0.69;

c) Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi: 0.57;

d) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi: 0.46.

Page 7 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

xii) On 16 January 2026, Respondent No. 4 declared the appointment of the

Petitioner as one of the nominated Councillors of the Tumsar Municipal Council.

The list of nominated Councillors, as approved and declared in the meeting held

on 16 January 2026, was as follows:

i) Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in WP No.2787/2026)

ii) Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar

iii) Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram (Petitioner herein)

4. However, Respondent No. 3, by its letter dated 19 January 2026

addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, sought the

setting aside of the process of appointment of nominated Councillors of the

Tumsar Municipal Council on the ground that Respondent No. 4 had erroneously

conducted and concluded the process relating to the appointment of the aforesaid

nominated Councillors.

5. On 20 January 2026, Respondent No. 3, vide his order of even date,

initiated the process for the election of members to the Standing Committee and

other Special Committees of the Tumsar Municipal Council. By the said order,

Respondent No. 3 directed that a Special Meeting of the Municipal Council be

convened for the purpose of constituting and electing members to the aforesaid

Committees in accordance with the governing statutory provisions.

6. On 22

nd

January 2026 the Petitioner vide letters of even date requested

Respondent No.3 that his name as nominated councilor be duly published in the

official Gazette. On the said date Respondent No.4 also issued letter requesting

Respondent No.3 to issue the official Gazette or to postpone the schedule meeting

Page 8 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

dated 27

th

January 2026 for the election to the standing committee. It is the

Petitioners contention that in the letter dated 22

nd

January 2026 the Petitioner had

specifically requested Respondent No.3 to duly publish his name as nominated

councilors in the official Gazette as it was a statutory requirement to enable the

Petitioner to attend the subject meeting scheduled on 27

th

January 2026 or to

postpone the scheduled meeting. It is petitioner's contention that it was specifically

pointed out that similar nominated councilors names had already been issued in

the Official Gazette in other districts.

7. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned

letter/communication dated 11

th

February 2026 setting aside the appointment of

the Petitioner as nominated councilor and further Respondent No.3 issued another

communication dated 12

th

February 2026 setting aside the nomination process.

The Respondent No.3 also directed Respondent No.4 to convene a General

meeting for the purposes of undertaking appointment of nominated councilors

afresh expressly stating therein that earlier appointment made of 16

th

January 2026

need to be set aside.

8. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the Petitioners being

aggrieved by the impugned letters/communication dated 11

th

February 2026 issued

by Respondent No.1 and impugned letter/communication dated 12

th

February

2026 issued by Respondent No.3 have filed the present Petition. In the course of

the proceedings which have been filed by both the aforesaid Petitioners, an

Intervention Application has been filed bearing No. 16159 of 2026 in Writ

Petition No. 2787/2026 wherein the intervener has prayed for impleadment as

Page 9 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

party Respondent in the aforesaid Petition. Primary ground on which intervener

has filed the present Interim Application being that the Respondent No.4

erroneously declared the names of three councilors including that of the aforesaid

Petitioners without following the provisions of the The Maharashtra Municipal

Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rules thereunder as well as Government Resolution

dated 21

st

December 2016. It is on this ground that the intervener has sought

reliefs from this Court to allow him to be impleaded as party Respondent and also

to give him a fair hearing before passing any orders in the aforesaid petition.

9. When the present proceedings were listed before the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court on 11

th

March 2026, the following order was passed:-

P.C.:-

1. These matters were heard extensively today. At 5.50 p.m. the learned AGP,

Mr. Chandurkar, submits that the Court may pass an appropriate order.

2. We have perused the impugned order dated 11

th

February, 2026, by which

a direction has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Urban

Development Department, State of Maharashtra, to the District Collector,

stating that the nominations made for inducting nominated Councillors of the

Tumsar Municipal Council, are not in accordance with the provisions of law

and the said nominations made by the elected President of the Municipal

Council, as well as the procedure adopted by the District Collector, should be

cancelled and fresh nominations should be made in terms of the Government

Circular dated 21

st

December, 2016.

3. A single glance at the impugned order indicates that the said order is

without reasons. The Deputy Secretary has not taken the pains to indicate in

her order as to which provisions of law have been disregarded or which clause

e the Circular or which provision or the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and

Nagar Panchayats Nominations and Procedure for Appointment of

Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010, has been violated.

4. Though the learned AGP, Mr. Chandurkar, has made a valiant attempt to

analyse the impugned order, we can see his discomfort in conveying to us as to

which Rule, Section or Clause of the Circular can be said to have been

violated, in the light of the impression carried by the Deputy Secretary while

passing the impugned order.

Page 10 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

5. The District Collector is now set to re-consider his earlier decision of

nominations and would now again formalise the nominations of the

Councillors tomorrow, ie., 12

th

March, 2026. The Petitioners before us were

already nominated. They are aggrieved that the unreasoned impugned order

of the Deputy Secretary, who has no authority to sit over the business of the

Municipal Council in nominating Councillors, has led to the District

Collector finding himself in a helpless situation. He has no option, but to

obey the directions of the Deputy Secretary and cancel the nominations made

earlier.

6. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 27

th

April, 2026. The

learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

7. Let the affidavit in reply be filed, at least, ten days prior to the returnable

date.

8. Until further orders, if the Gat Netas have made their recommendations to

the President of the Council and, in turn, if the President of the Council has

conveyed those names to the District Collector, we direct the District

Collector to keep all such nominations in a sealed envelope.

10. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi alongwith Mr. Shantanu Patil, learned counsel

appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in both Writ Petitions. Smt. Neha S. Bhide

Government Pleader alongwith Shri. O.A.Chandurkar, Addl.G.P. with Smt.

P.N.Diwan, AGP, appeared for Respondent in both Writ Petitions. Mr. Rushikesh

Kekane, learned counsel for Applicant appeared in Intervention Application (ST)

No.16159/2026 in Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2026.

11. The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioners is that the impugned letters/communications dated 11th February

2026 and 12th February 2026, whereby the nomination process was set aside, have

been issued in an arbitrary and impermissible manner, thereby vitiating the process

of nomination of nominated Councillors. It was further contended that the process

of appointment of nominated Councillors to the Municipal Council was conducted

in a fair and transparent manner, with all concerned parties being afforded equal

Page 11 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

opportunity in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and that no illegality

whatsoever had been committed in the said process.

12. It is submitted that the maximum number of nominated Councillors in

Tumsar Municipal Council is three (3), and the same is required to be determined

on the basis of the relative strength of the recognized parties, registered parties,

Groups, or Aghadies. The submission is that the nominations made by Respondent

No.3 were in consonance with the provisions of Section 63(2B) of the Act. It was

further submitted that, having regard to the aforesaid statutory provisions and the

relative strength of the respective parties, the nominated Councillors were duly

appointed.

13. On behalf of the intervener, Mr. Abhishek Jagdish Karemore, learned

counsel Mr. Rushikesh Kekane submitted that the impugned communications

dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were rightly issued, inasmuch

as the relative strength of the parties had not been correctly determined and the

mandate of Section 63(2B) of the Act had not been duly followed. He submitted

that, out of total of ten nominations forwarded by various Groups/parties for

consideration for appointment to the three posts of nominated Councillors to

Tumsar Municipal Council the name of the Applicant was also included. It was

further submitted that, upon scrutiny of the said nominations, Respondent No. 3

assessed the relative strength of the respective parties, and the outcome of such

assessment was as follows:

I) Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat – 1.26

ii) Rashtrvadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi – 0.69

Page 12 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

iii) Tumsar Rastravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi – 0.57

iv) Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi - 0.46

14. It was his contention that, having regard to the aforesaid relative

strength of the parties, Gat/Group No. 4, namely

Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi,

whose relative strength was only 0.46, was not entitled even to a single nomination

to the post of nominated Councillor. However, despite the same, one councilor

from Gat/Group No.4 came to be nominated as a Councillor, which, according to

the intervener, was contrary to and not in consonance with the mandate of Section

63(2B) of the Act. Consequently, it was submitted that the impugned

communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were rightly

issued to rectify the illegality committed in the nomination process.

15. In view thereof, it was submitted that the entire process of nomination

of the Councillors was not undertaken in accordance with law and, therefore, the

impugned communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026

were rightly issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, respectively.

16. Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit dated 20th April 2026 through

Mr. Sawan Kumar, District Collector, Bhandara, opposing the admission of the

aforesaid Petition. The primary contention raised in the said affidavit is that the

process of nomination was required to be undertaken in strict compliance with the

provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the Government

Resolution dated 21st December 2016. It was submitted that, despite the

requirement of adhering to the principle of relative strength, the President of

Respondent No. 4 – Tumsar Municipal Council proceeded to nominate three

Page 13 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

Councillors, namely, two from Gat/Group ‘D’ and one from Gat/Group ‘C’.

According to Respondent No. 3, such nominations were not in consonance with

the concept of relative strength as envisaged under Section 63 (2B) of the Act and

the relevant Rules. Consequently, it was contended that the impugned

letters/communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 were

rightly issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid affidavit are reproduced below:

4.1. Tumsar Municipal Council has 25 Elected Councillors, 3 Nominated

Councillors and 1 Directly Elected President. In the present matter, the issue

involved revolves around the selection of the 3 nominated councillors.

4.2. Considering Tumsar Municipal Council which is Class-B Council. the

process of Selection of 3 Nominated Councillors is envisaged in Section 51B

of Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial

Townships Act, 1965 and Rule 5 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and

Nagar Panchayats (Qualifications and procedure for appointment of

nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010. Apart from the aforesaid provisions, the

Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra has also

issued a Government Resolution dated 21.12.2016, which stipulates the

procedure in respect of nomination of councillors.Hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit R-2 is a copy of the GovernmentResolution dated

21.12.2016

4.3. Accordingly, on 02.12.2025. elections of Tumsar Municipal Councils

took place. On 21.12.2025, the election results were declared and the 25

Elected Councillors and 1 President stood elected. It is pertinent to note that

the said elections are challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,

Nagpur Bench (Writ Petition No. 520 of 2026) now transferred and

renumbered as Writ Petition No. 1496 of 2026 (before the Hon' ble Principal

Bench) The said matter is pending adjudication.

4.4. Post the stage of election of 25 Elected Councillors and the elected

President, the President now had to select 3 Councillors by the process of

nomination. The process of nomination had to be strictly in compliance with

the provisions laid down in the Act read with the Rules and Government

Resolution dated 21.12.2016, ie. taking into account the relative strength of

recognized parties or registered parties or Groups in proportion in strength of

such parties or Group in the Councils after consulting the leader of each of

such parties or Groups. Now taking into consideration the process envisaged,

the Nominations were called for from the Group leaders and the same were

submitted with Respondent No. 3 for scrutiny.

Page 14 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

4.5.These nominations were duly scrutinized by the Respondent No. 3,

District Collector, Bhanadara and the exercise of finding out relative strength

was also undertaken. The result of the said exercise was as under:

a. Bhartiya Janata Party Samarthit Gat: 1.26;

b. Rastravadi Congress Party Pranit Vikas Aghadi: 0.69;

c. Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas Aghadi: 0.57;

d. Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi: 0.46.

4.6. A list of 10 prospective councillors post the stage of scrutiny were

forwarded to the President, Tumsar Municipal Council. The names of the said

Councillors and the parties and Gat/Group to which they belong can be seen

from the list of 10 prospective Councillors which was forwarded to the

President. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-3 is a copy of the said list

of 10 prospective Councillors. Taking into consideration, the relative strength

ratio of the parties at "a", "b" & "c" above, it was expected from the president

to select 1 Councillors from "a", "b" & "e" each, totalling to 3 Councillors.

4.7. On 16.01.2026, a meeting was convened by the Tumsar Municipal

Council for selection of the Nominated Councillors. Instead of following the

relative strength ratio envisaged, the President Tumsar Municipal Council, in

the course of the said meeting selected 3 Councillors i.e. 2 from Group "d"

and one from Group "c". Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R-4 is a copy

of the minutes of the meeting dated 16.01.2026, (also annexed at Exhibit J'

page 67 of the Petition).

4.8. Taking into consideration the irregularity and illegality which took place

in the meeting held on 16.01.2026, Respondent No. 3, addressed a letter on

19.01.2026, to the Principal Secretary, Navi-2, Urban Development

Department, bringing to their kind attention the facts of the matter as well as

specifically stating therein the irregularity which took place in the process of

selection of nomination councillors in Tumsar Municipal Council. Hereto

annexed and marked as Exhibit R-5 is a copy of the Letter dated 19.01.2026.

4.9. The letter dated 19.01.2026, was duly replied to by the Urban

Development Department vide its letter dated 11.02.2026. Taking into

account the facts put forth by the District Collector vide its letter dated

19.01.2026, the Urban Development Department, directed the Collector, to

take a decision by following due process of law. Hereto annexed and marked

as Exhibit R-6 is a copy of the Letter dated 11.02.2026 (also af Exhibit 'A'

page 28 of the Petition).

4.10. Thereafter, the Collector, taking into account the gravity of the situation

as well as the clear breach of the concept of relative strength took a decision to

set aside the entire process of nomination of councillors. It is pertinent to note

that as per the relative strength ratio, there ought to have been Nominated

Councillors from Gat/Group 'a", 'b' & ‘c' above. The process and concept of

relative strength has been clearly envisaged in Section 51B of Maharashtra

Municipal Council. Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and

Rule 5 of Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats

(Qualifications and procedure for appointment of nominated Councillors)

Page 15 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

Rules, 2010 and also in Government Resolution dated 21.12.2016. Hereto

annexed and marked as Exhibit R-7 is a copy of the Letter dated 12.02.2026

(impugned letter/ decision).

5. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstance, it is humbly

submitted that the grounds raised by the Petitioner as regards interference of

the executive in the democratic process are unfounded and baseless. It is clear

from the minutes of the meeting dated 16.01.2026, that the President, Tumsar

Municipal Council by selecting the persons from Group 'd' have exceeded his

powers by not following the procedure, breached the statutory provisions and

has acted in an arbitrary manner.

17. We have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Since the

controversy involved in the present Petition primarily turns upon the

interpretation of the expression “relative strength” as contemplated under Section

63(2B) of the Act, it would be apposite to reproduce the said provision:

Section 63

63. Constitution of Subjects Committees of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class Councils.—

(1) Each Subjects Committee of the Council appointed under the last preceding

section shall consist of such number of Councillors as the Council may determine, so

however that the number of members of a Subjects Committee shall not be less than

one-fourth or more than one-third of the total number of Councillors:

Provided that, in so determining the number of the members of and Subjects

Committee, a fraction shall be ignored:

Provided further that, on the Women and Child Welfare Committee, not less than

seventy-five per cent. of the members shall be from amongst women Councillors:

Provided also that, the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson on the Women and

Child Welfare Committee shall be from amongst the women Councillor members

thereof.

Explanation.— For the purpose of computing the number of members at seventy-five

per cent., fraction, if any, shall be rounded off to one.

(2) The Collector shall, within seven days of the election of the President under

section 51, call a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of,—

(a) determining the number of the members of each of the Subject Committees

referred to in the last preceding section, and the Subjects Committee of which the

Vice-President shall be the ex-officio Chairman, and

Page 16 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

(b) nominating Councillors on the Subjects Committees in accordance with the

provisions of sub-section(2B)

Provided that, the President shall not be eligible for being a member of any of the

Subjects Committees [but he shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take

part in the proceedings of, any Subjects Committee, except that he shall not be

entitled to vote thereat.

(2A) [(i)] The meeting called under sub-section (2) shall be presided over by the

Collector or such officer as the Collector may by order in writing appoint in this

behalf. The Collector or such officer shall, when presiding over such meeting have the

same powers as the President of a Council, when presiding over a meeting of the

Council has, but shall not have the right to vote.

(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for regulating the procedure at

meetings (including the quorum thereat), the Collector or such officer may, for

reasons which in his opinion are sufficient, refuse to adjourn the meeting convened as

per the provisions of sub-section (2), after it was once cancelled or adjourned for want

of quorum.

(2B) In nominating the Councillors, the Collector shall take into account the relative

strength of recognised parties or registered parties or Groups and nominate members,

as nearly as may be, in proportion to the strength of such parties or Groups in the

Council, after consulting the leader of each such party or Group:

Provided that, the relative strength of the recognized parties or registered parties or

Groups or aghadi or front shall be calculated by first dividing the total number of

Councillors by the total strength of members of the Committee. The number of

Councillors of the recognized parties or registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front

shall be further divided by the quotient of this division. The figures so arrived at shall

be the relative strength of the respective recognized parties or registered parties or

Groups or aghadi or front. The seats shall be allotted to the recognized parties or

registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front by first considering the whole number

of their respective relative strength so ascertained. After allotting the seats in this

manner, if one or more seats remain to be allotted, the same shall be allotted one each

to the recognized parties or registered parties or Groups or aghadi or front in the

descending order of the fraction number in the respective relative strength starting

from the highest fraction number in the relative strength, till all the seats are allotted:

Provided further that, for the purpose of deciding the relative strength of the

recognised parties or registered parties or Groups under this sub-section, the

recognised parties or registered parties or Groups, or elected Councillor not belonging

to any such party or Group may, notwithstanding anything contained in the

Maharashtra Local Authority Members‘ Disqualification Act, 1986 (Mah. XX of

1987), within a period of not more than one month from the date of notification of

election results, form the aghadi or front and, on its registration, the provisions of the

said Act shall apply to the members of such aghadi or front, as if it is a pre-poll aghadi

or front.

Page 17 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

(2C) If any question arises as regards the number of Councillors to be nominated on

behalf of such party or Group, the decision of the Collector shall be final.

(4) The Chairman of every Subjects Committee (other than the Subjects Committee

of which the Vice-President is to be the ex-officio Chairman) shall be elected by the

members of that Committee at the meeting convened under sub-section (2):

Provided that, no Councillor shall be eligible to be the Chairman of more than one

Subjects Committee.

18. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, particularly Section

63(2B) of the Act, it is evident that, while nominating Councillors, the Collector is

required to take into account the relative strength of the recognized parties,

registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts and nominate members, as nearly as

may be, in proportion to the strength of such parties or groups in the Council, after

consulting the leader of each such party or group.

19. The proviso to Section 63(2B) prescribes the formula for determining

the relative strength of the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis

or Fronts. Once the relative strength of the respective recognized parties, registered

parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts is computed in accordance with the proviso, the

nomination of Councillors is required to be made on that basis. The seats are to be

allotted to the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts by

first considering the whole number of their relative strength as so determined.

Thereafter, if any seat remains to be allotted, the same is required to be allotted, one

each, to the recognized parties, registered parties, Groups, Aghadis or Fronts in the

descending order of the fractional component of their respective relative strength,

commencing with the highest fraction and continuing until all the seats are

allotted.

Page 18 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

20. In the facts of the present case, the parties are ad idem that the relative

strength of Gat/Group Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as enumerated in para 3(xi) has been

correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(2B) and the

proviso thereto, and the applicable Rules. Consequently, the nomination of

Councillors from the said Groups/Aghadis cannot be faulted.

21. However, insofar as Gat/Group No. 4, namely

Tumsar Shahar Vikas

Aghadi

, is concerned, its relative strength has been determined at only 0.46. In

view of the scheme of Section 63(2B) and the method prescribed for allotment of

seats, such relative strength would not entitle Gat/Group No. 4 to secure

nomination of a Councillor. This being the position, we are of the considered view

that the action taken by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in the impugned

communications dated 11th February 2026 and 12th February 2026 was justified

and in accordance with law. The nomination of Councillors to the Tumsar

Municipal Council made by Respondent No. 4, insofar as it is inconsistent with the

mandate of Section 63(2B) of the Act, was therefore liable to be set aside.

Consequently, a fresh process for nomination of eligible Councillors shall be

undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules

framed thereunder.

22. The parties are also ad idem on the issue that out of 10 nominations

submitted the three councilors who have been selected in the meeting dated 16

th

January 2026 viz. Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition

No.2787of 2026 ) Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar and Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram,

the nominations of Mr. Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 )

Page 19 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

cannot be called into question as he belongs to Tumsar Rashtravadi Janhit Vikas

Aghadi (Gat/Group No.3), which has relative strength as per provisions of Section

63(2B) of the Act. However, in respect of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar and Mr.

Shailesh Toluram Meshram (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2788 of 2026) as they

belong to Gat/Group Tumsar Shahar Vikas Aghadi, which does not have the

relative strength as per the provisions of Section 63(2B) their nominations need to

be set aside.

23. In view of the fact that the parties are ad idem that the nomination of

Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2787of 2026 ), is

valid and that of the other two Councillors i.e. Mr. Shailesh Toluram Meshram

( Petitioner in WP No. 2788 of 2026) and of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar is invalid,

we pass the following order which will meet the ends of justice:-

ORDER

1. The impugned letters/communication dated 11

th

February 2026

and 12

th

February 2026 are set aside to the extent that they hold

the nomination of Mr. Titirmare (Petitioner in WP No. 2787 of

2026) is invalid

2. Insofar as the nominations of the other two councillors i.e. Mr.

Shailesh Toluram Meshram ( Petitioner in WP No. 2788 of 2026)

and of Mr. Hitesh Dilip Chopkar are concerned, the impugned

letters/communications dated 11th February and 12th February

2026 are upheld and respondents are directed to initiate fresh

process of nomination of councillors as per provisions of Section

63(2B) of the Act read with the proviso thereto and the Rules

within 3 weeks from the date this order is made available to the

Respondents by the petitioners.

3. Writ Petition No.2788 of 2026 filed by Mr. Shailesh Toluram

Meshram is dismissed whereas Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2026

Page 20 of 21

Mane

1& 2- WP-2788-26 & ANR.DOC

filed by Mr. Pramod Narayan Titirmare stands disposed of in the

aforeaid terms. No costs.

4. All other interim applications, if any, also do not survive in view of

the aforesaid orders

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 21 of 21

Mane