Vaishali W/O Dilip Thakur And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.653 OF 2026

1. Sau Vaishali w/o. Dilip Thakur, } Aged about 56, Occupation: Business, } R/o. Main Road, Railway Station, Katol, } District Nagpur } }

2. Vijay S/o. Gambhirrao Mahajan, } Aged about 45 years, Occupation: Private, } Ro/o. Laxmi Nagar, Katol, District Nagpur } Petitioners Vs.

1. State of Maharashtra } through its Principal Secretary, } Urban Development Department-II, } Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 } }

2. Municipal Council, Katol } through its Chief Officer, Katol, } District Nagpur } }

3. President, Municipal Council, Katol } District Nagpur } }

4. Archana w/o. Rahul Deshmukh } Aged about 45 years, Occupation:

} Household, R/o. Prabhag No. 2, Deshmukh } Pura, Katol, District Nagpur } Respondents ...

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Date:

2026.02.06 13:30:44 +0530 BASAVRAJ GURAPPA PATIL Mr. Mohit P. Khajanchi a/w. Ms. Aparna Devkar, Advocates for the Petitioners Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. B. V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. K. B. Dighe, Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Akshay Naik Senior Advocate (through VC) with Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, Advocates for Respondent No.4 Page | 1

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 14th JANUARY 2026 P.C. :

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the Notice dated 7th January 2026 issued by the respondent no. 3 calling the First General Meeting and the Circular dated 21st December 2016 issued by the respondent-State of Maharashtra. 2.

Under the said Government Circular No.2016/pr.kr.466/navi20 dated 21st December 2016, the provisions under section 51A-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short, the Act of 1965) were clarified to the extent that an elected President of the Municipal Council, who is a Councillor under section 2(7), shall be entitled to cast his vote in the election of a Vice-President for the Municipal Council.

3.

Mr. Mohit P. Khajanchi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that sub-section (1) to section 51A of the Act of 1965 which deals with the election of Vice-President provides that every Council shall have a Vice-President who shall be elected by the elected Councillors from amongst themselves in the special meeting convened under sub-section (2) of section 51. Sub-section (6A) to section 51A provides that the Councils to which the President is directly elected after the commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 2022, the provisions of section 51A shall apply with the following modifications:- "(I) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:- "(1) Every Council shall have a Vice-President, who shall be elected Page | 2

by the elected Councillors amongst themselves in the first general meeting convened under sub-section (9) of section 51A-IA." (II) for sub-section (6), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:- "(6) Subject to the provisions of section 55A and other provisions of this Act, the Vice-President shall hold the office for a term of five years from the date of his election and his term shall be coterminus with the term of the Council."

4.

Section 51A(1) has been made applicable with the modification that every Council shall have a Vice-President who shall be elected by the elected Councillors amongst themselves in the first general meeting convened under sub-section 9 of section 51A-1A. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision in "Yogendra Jituji Rangari v. Collector, Nagpur & Ors." 2022 SCC Online Bom 1350 to draw a distinction between the directly elected President and duly elected President and submitted that the Circular dated 21st December 2016 contravenes the statutory provisions under section 51A of the Act of 1965.

5.

In our opinion, the submission made at the Bar is without any foundation. The statutory provisions under the Act of 1965 make it clear at more than one place that a directly elected President shall be entitled to vote in the election of Vice-President. The expression "elected Councillors from amongst themselves" in sub-section (1) of section 51A does not distinguish between the directly elected President and the duly elected President. A directly elected President does not cease to be an elected Councillor on being elected to the post of President of the Council. It was in the context of noconfidence motion in which the decision in "Yogendra Jituji Rangari" was delivered by this Court drawing a distinction between the duly elected President and the directly elected President. Section 55-1A deals with the removal of Vice-President by Councillors of the Page | 3

Council by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than twothirds of the total number of the Councillors. If the resolution is approved at the special meeting then the Vice-President shall cease to hold the office. Sub-section (2) to section 55-1A when read in the context of the removal of Vice- President shall make it clear that the nominated Councillors shall not be entitled to vote in their special meeting convened for removal of a Vice-President. Sub-section (2) provides that "a request for special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of Councillors and shall be sent to the President" and the President shall, within ten days of the receipt of such request, convene a special meeting of the Council, where the nominated Councillors shall not have right to vote. Quite apparently, it was in the context of section 55-1A, this Court held that the Councillor defined under section 2(7) shall not be included in the expression "total number of Councillors". 6.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, Writ Petition No.653 of 2026 is dismissed.

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] Page | 4