1 / 4 130.wp6146.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6146 OF 2026 AJAY S/O SITARAM GHANOKAR VS THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NANDURA THR. CHIEF OFFICER AND ANR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : 17.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, Councillor of the Municipal Council, who was elected in the year 2025-26, has challenged the work order dated 12.07.2022 for carrying out door to door survey of the properties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in this petition is no more res integra and is decided by authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No.2392/2017 decided on 03.07.2019 and judgment in case of Sandeep Inderchand Gandhi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2015 (3) Mh.L.J. 925. Prity 2 / 4 130.wp6146.2026 3. He submits that in view of the said decision, the Court has categorically held that the Chief Officer has no power to outsource the work in question. 4. When enquired as to why the petition was not filed in the year 2022 and what is the current status of the work, the petitioner submits that since law is settled, delay is not the ground for rejection of the petition. He further submits that the current status would be filed on record by way of additional affidavit. 5. We would like to state that in writ petition pleadings are the heart of the issue. The pleadings are required to be supported by the various documents. The principles governing the law of pleadings qua a civil suit cannot be made applicable to the writ petitions. There is absolutely no material to show what is the present status of the work in question. Further though averments are made that petitioner has submitted several representation, not a single representation is filed on record. On the basis of loose pleadings entertaining writ petition would not be expedient. At this stage, observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 13, in case Bharat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., and connected matters reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534, are worth noting : “13. As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions Prity 3 / 4 130.wp6146.2026 before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit.” 6. We would like to state so far as aspect of delay is concerned, it is stated that petitioner who is Councillor and as such, a representative of public, is required to act swiftly. From 2022 to 2026, no steps were taken by the petitioner. Apart from it, the grievance, if any, can always be agitated by the individual person who would be aggrieved by the assessment order passed. Prity 4 / 4 130.wp6146.2026 7. Apart from it though, petitioner has sought necessary information by making application (page 40) without receiving the same and satisfying itself so also not putting all the material before the Court has approached the Court. 8. We are at pain to state that though according to the petitioner, the issue is covered by the aforesaid judgment in case of Sandeep Inderchand Gandhi (supra), still the petitioner has not approached this Court or the concerned authorities immediately. This speaks volume for itself. Sometimes the Court will have to read between the lines. Invocation of writ jurisdiction presupposes, a vigilant litigant who approaches the Court without unreasonable delay. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to mention that dismissal of petition would not debar the petitioner to take appropriate steps as may be available in law. (Rajnish R. Vyas, J.) (Anil S. Kilor, J.) Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/08/2026 19:03:42