37-WP-3805-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2026 Udaysinh Maruti Patil And Another ...Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Kalpesh U. Patil with Mr. Rushikesh R. Chavan, for the Petitioners. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State. Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh with Mr. Siddharth Karpe, Mr. Ketan Joshi, i/b. Mr. Akshay Shinde, for the Respondent No.3. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 17, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present petition, the challenge is to the Resolution No. 172 dated 27th July 2026 passed by the Special General Body of the Respondent No.3-Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation. 2. The contention of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner is that the Standing Committee had rejected the estimate for the purpose of issuing the contract for door- to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste. He submits that despite the Standing Committee rejecting the estimate on 15th July 2026, the said subject was taken by the Special General Body of the Respondent No.3-Ichalkaranji Municipal Corporation. He submits Gaikwad RD 1 of 4 37-WP-3805-2026.doc that on 27th July 2026, in the Special General Body meeting, it was resolved that the General Body is supreme and there was no necessity of seeking approval to the estimate from the Standing Committee. He submits that the estimate of about Rs.22 Crores came to be approved by the Special General Body and the tender was issued on 7th August 2026 and the bids were opened on 17th August 2026. 3. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate has taken this Court through the statutory provisions of Sections 73, 77, 79 and Section 96 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (‘MMC Act’) and would submit that before the contract is entered into in terms of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act, the approval of the Standing Committee is required, particularly considering that the contract is for a sum of about Rs.22 Crores. He has further drawn support from the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Nandkishor Ganesh Joshi v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan & Dombivali & Ors.,1 which interpreted the provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act. 4. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 Corporation would raise a preliminary objection contending that the Petitioner had, on 4th August 2026, approached the State Government under Section 451 of the MMC Act for challenging the resolution which is also impugned in the present petition. He would 1 (2004) 11 SCC 417. Gaikwad RD 2 of 4 37-WP-3805-2026.doc further submit that the Special General Body is empowered to approve the estimate. He submits that the reliance placed on Section 96 of the MMC Act is misconceived as the Standing Committee is required to consider the estimate and proposal of the Commissioner and add or modify therein and frame a budget estimate, which is to be laid before the Corporation. He submits that in any event, insofar as the contract is concerned, considering the provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act, the contract will be placed before the Standing Committee. 5. Mr. Sakhare would submit that in event there is compliance of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act and the contract is placed before the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee can then take an appropriate decision. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. The issue as to whether under Section 96 of the MMC Act, the approval of the Standing Committee was required or not for the estimate is not required to be considered by this Court in this petition considering that it is now conceded on the basis of the statutory provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act that the contract, which is required to be entered into pursuant to the tender, which has been issued, will be placed before the Standing Committee. 8. The decision on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Sakhare contemplates a situation under Section 73(c) of the MMC Act as regards Gaikwad RD 3 of 4 37-WP-3805-2026.doc the proposal for grant of approval of the contract. In that case, the Honorable Apex Court has analyzed the statutory provisions to hold that although a Commissioner is entitled to execute contracts on behalf of the Corporation, a statutory embargo is placed by reason of Clause (c) of Section 73 of the MMC Act, which requires prior approval of the Standing Committee. The interpretation of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act by the Honorable Apex Court would require the Commissioner to place the contract to be entered into, pursuant to the bids, which were accepted, before the Standing Committee. 9. In view thereof, the petition is disposed of in view of the accepted position. It need not be clariied that before the contract is entered into, as per the statutory provisions of Section 73(c) of the MMC Act, the Commissioner is required to place the contract before the Standing Committee for approval. 10. The disposal of the present petition will not come in the way of the application under Section 451 of the MMC Act, which is pending before the State Government and the same to be decided on its own merit. 11. The petition stands disposed of with the above observation. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 4 of 4 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.08.18 20:30:20 +0530