15-WP 12456-26.DOC Prajakta Vartak IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12456 OF 2026 Sufiyan Ibrahim Jin ...Petitioner Vs The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents _________ Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for NMC. Ms. Manuja Pingale for Respondent No.2. Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for State. _________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATE: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:- “a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to call for special general body meeting forthwith and commence the procedure to nominate 10 persons as nominated / co-opted Councilors to the General Body of Nashik Municipal Corporation under Section 5 sub-section 2 (b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 read with Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012; b. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to complete the procedure for appointment of 10 nominated / co-opted Councillors to the General Body of Nashik Municipal Corporation and issue notification in the official Gazette to that effect before 17 June 2026.” 2. Mr. Sakhadeo, learned counsel for respondent no.1/NMC, also stated that he had taken instructions and the Principal Municipal Secretary had addressed a letter dated 28 September 2026 setting out the appropriate steps which would 29 September 2026 PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Digitally signed by PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK Date: 2026.10.05 16:31:29 +0530 15-WP 12456-26.DOC now be taken. The said letter is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 3. At the outset, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the elections of Nashik Municipal Corporation were held on 15 January 2026 and the results were declared on 16 January 2026. He has drawn our attention to the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councilors) Rules, 2012 (for short, “the said Rules”). Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the Corporation shall, in its meeting held immediately after the expiry of one month from the date of notification of election results, after general elections, nominate five persons to be nominated councillors. The said rule is required to be noted which reads thus:- “3. Meeting for nomination of councillors Subject to the provisions of rule 4, the Corporation shall, in its meeting held immediately after the expiry of one month from the date of notification of election results, after general elections, nominate five persons to be nominated councillors.” 4. Further Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for ‘Nomination of councillors’ which is required to be noted which reads thus:- “5. Nomination of councillors (1) For the purpose of nomination of councillors, the Commissioner shall, after consulting the Leader of the House, Leader of Opposition and Leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the relative strength of such parties and groups recommend the names of suitable persons to the Corporation for being nominated as a nominated councillor. The names of such persons recommended shall not exceed the number of councillors to be nominated in accordance with rule 3. Provided that, while recommending the names of persons to be nominated councillors on the basis of relative strengths of the recognized or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts, formed as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 50S of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, or section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal 29 September 2026 15-WP 12456-26.DOC Corporation Act, 1949 or section 40A of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, as the case may be, the Commissioner shall first consider the whole number of the seats admissible for nomination of persons as nominated councillors to such recognized or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts, as per their relative strengths and thereafter if one or more seats remain to be allotted, the same shall be allotted to such recognized or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts in the descending order of the fraction numbers, considering the highest fraction till all the seats of nominated councillors are allotted: Provided further that, while recommending the names of the basis of the descending order of the fraction number, as mentioned in the above proviso, if two or more recognized parties or groups or aghadis or fronts have the same fraction number, then the Commissioner shall, recommend the names of person belonging to such recognized or registered parties or groups or aghadis or fronts, selected on the basis of lots drawn in the presence of all such concerned parties or groups or aghadis or fronts.] (2) The Corporation shall, after considering the recommendation by the Commissioner, nominate the councillors: Provided that, if the Corporation decides not to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner with respect to a person so recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor: Provided further that, every endeavor shall be made to ensure that one councillor each possessing any of the qualifications referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of rule 4 has been nominated.” 5. It is thus clear that, for the purpose of nominating Councilors, it is the Commissioner, who, after consulting the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the relative strength of such parties and groups, is required to recommend the names of suitable persons to the Corporation for nomination as nominated councillors. The names of the persons so recommended shall not exceed the number of councillors to be nominated in accordance with Rule 3. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the Corporation shall, after considering the recommendations made by the Commissioner, nominate the councillors. The proviso thereto ordains that, if the Corporation decides not to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner with respect to a 29 September 2026 15-WP 12456-26.DOC person so recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor. 6. It appears from the record that, although Rule 3 required a meeting to be convened within one month of the election of the Municipal Corporation for the appointment of nominated councillors, no such meeting was convened within the stipulated period. It is in these circumstances, the present petition came to be filed. 7. Mr. Deshmukh has also brought to our notice that the position of law was considered by this Bench in the decision in Rajesh Vadhrya & Anr. Versus Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors., Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2026, decided on 11 September 2026, wherein, in such context, the Court, upon considering the provisions of the said Rules and the provisions of the Act, and more particularly Section 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (“MMC Act”), held as under:- “17. We may at the outset observe that Section 5(2)(b) of the MMC Act categorically provides for the councillors to be appointed by nomination. In regard to such appointment by nomination, specific Rules are framed under the MMC Act, namely, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated councillors) Rules, 2012 (supra). The obligation under Rule 3 and 4 is inter alia is to the effect that Corporation holds a meeting after expiry of one month from the date of notification of election results of the general elections, to appoint nominated councillors and the procedure in that regard to be followed by the Commissioner as set out in Rule 5 of the said Rules (supra). Admittedly, such meeting (SGBM) for such purpose was not convened within one month in breach of the statutory mandate. We, however, do not intend to delve upon the reason as to why such statutory obligation was not timely met and more importantly, when the nominated councillors are integral to the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, under the provisions of the Act as provided for under Section 5 of the MMC Act. …… 29. There is certainly an obligation under the said statutory provisions that such meeting to nominate the Councillors be held immediately after the expiry of one month from the date of notification of the election results of 29 September 2026 15-WP 12456-26.DOC the general elections, to nominate the councillors as provided in Rule 3 of the 2012 Rules. We thus find that it was not open, nay illegal, for the Mayor to take into consideration the reasons as set out in the advocates notice, addressed to the Commissioner requesting to postpone the SGBM, which was convened for today, merely because the group of the disqualified corporators would suffer a prejudice on account of their disqualification. This could never have been the reason to postpone a statutory meeting. We are of the opinion that it is quite clear that the Mayor has acted for a collateral purpose which cannot be recognized in law as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel (supra), when it held as follows: “18. ...In this regard, in our opinion, although the Mayor had the power to cancel the notice convening the meeting and to direct the secretary to issue a notice in that effect, the said power could be exercised only bona fide and for a purpose or purposes within the scope of the said Act. If the power was exercised mala fide or for a collateral purpose, the exercise of the power would certainly be bad.” 8. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the Mayor, who is represented before us by Ms. Pingale, learned counsel for respondent no.2, as also the Municipal Commissioner, who is represented by Mr. Sakhadeo, are required to take the necessary steps as the law would mandate to appoint nominated councillors. The appointment must be made in accordance with Section 5 of the MMC Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules (supra). Let such action in accordance with law be taken within a period of six weeks from today. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. 9. As the parties have taken a fair stand, we have not delved on the issue of the delay which has taken place at the hands of the Commissioner or the Mayor. We keep open all contentions of the parties on any such issues. 10. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 29 September 2026