Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15680 (BOM)

YAKUB ISHAQU SHAIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. A.G.P. HIGH COURT A.S. AND ORS.

WP/4939/2026 · 2026-10-06

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

57-WP-4939-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4939 OF 2026 Yakub Ishaqu Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through A.G.P. High Court, A.S., Mumbai and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Mohammad S. Mulla – Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Ravi P. Kadam – B Panel Counsel for State / Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Shrishail Sakhare – Advocate for Respondent No. 5 Mr. Vishwanath Patil – Advocate through VC, a/w Mr. Someshwar Wale and Mr. Jagdish Garud – Advocate for Solapur Municipal Corporation —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : October 06, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the election of Respondent No. 5 on the ground of disqualiication for being elected as Councillor under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, premised on a notice which was issued as regards unauthorised construction alleged to have been carried out by the returned candidate. 2. Perusal of the communication at page 86 would, irstly, indicate that the same is addressed to Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur, and not to Respondent No. 5. SG Punde 1 of 2 57-WP-4939-2026.doc 3. The contention is that Respondent No. 5 is the President of the said Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur. 4. Be that as it may. Considering the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as the challenge is to the disqualiication of Respondent No. 5, who is declared to be elected as a Councillor and whose election is sought to be disputed, the Petitioner has the remedy of iling an Election Petition under the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The Petition stands dismissed. 6. Needless to clarify that all the rights and contentions of all the parties are kept open. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] SG Punde 2 of 2