13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3990 OF 2026 Bhimrao Hanumant Rede-Patil. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, Abhang M. Suryawanshi and Ankita Chindage for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Rutik Kashid for the Respondent No.3. Mr. Kedar Lad, Poonam Bhotre and Indrayani Patil for the Respondent No. 4. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 25, 2026. P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner impugns the notice dated 14th August 2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 calling for special meeting on 19th August 2026 for the purpose of passing no confidence motion against the Petitioner. 3. The Petition came to be filed on 18th August 2026 with the contention that the present Petitioner has been declared elected as councillor of Respondent No.3. It is pleaded that suddenly on 17th August 2026, the Petitioner acquired knowledge from his other councillor that notice dated 14th August 2026 was issued to her at 3.15 Patil-SR 1 of 5 2026:BHC-KOL:8065-DB 13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc p.m. for the special meeting called on 19th August 2026 for the purpose of passing no confidence motion under Section 55-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, “Nagar Panchayats Act”]. The Petition specifically pleads that the Petitioner has not received and was not served with notice dated 14th August 2026 and therefore the petition came to be filed. 4. In light of said pleadings in the petition, by order of 18th August 2026, this Court restrained the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from conducting the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the Petitioner and listed the petition for hearing today. Today, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 - President of Mahalung-Shripur Nagar Panchayat. It is stated that being the President, notice was issued to all the councilors including the Petitioner on 14th August 2026 convening the special meeting at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of putting to vote a resolution of no confidence motion submitted against the Petitioner. It is pleaded that notice was published and affixed on the official notice board of Nagar Panchayat office and simultaneously notice dated 14th August 2026 came to be issued to the Petitioner, which fact has been suppressed from this Court. Copies of notice, publication of notice on the notice board of Nagar Panchayat office as well as the report of the peon who had gone Patil-SR 2 of 5 13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc to effect service on the councillors including the present Petitioner is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. 5. Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would dispute the contents of affidavit-in-reply and would submit that on 14th August 2026, the Petitioner was at Tuljapur and therefore report of the peon is incorrect. He would further submit that under the provisions of Section 55-1A read with Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act, a fresh notice will be required to be issued as it speaks of 3 days’ clear notice of special meeting and the meeting which was scheduled on 19th August 2026 has not been conducted and therefore fresh notice is required. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that report of the peon of Respondent No.3 would evidence the service of notice upon the Petitioner, who has refused to receive the notice. He would submit that the notice was also published on the notice board and therefore the Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the said notice. 7. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. Considering the specific case pleaded by the Petitioner, that there was no service of notice of meeting, which was scheduled on 19th August 2026, this Court granted ad-interim relief restraining the Respondents from holding the special meeting. The affidavit of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 specifically pleads about the notice being Patil-SR 3 of 5 13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc issued and published on the notice board of Nagar Panchayat as well as the service upon all the councillors, including the present Petitioner. The report of the peon which is at page 35 speaks about the service on other councillors and refusal by the Petitioner. Pertinently, one of the councillors, namely, Ms. Swati Late, who has received the notice, from whom the Petitioner acquired knowledge as admitted in the petition, was also served by the same peon, which is evident from the report at page 35. There is no reason why the peon of the Nagar Panchayat would submit an incorrect report and while everyone else has been served, the Petitioner would not be served. 9. The contention of Mr. Chavan that on 14th August 2026, the Petitioner was at Tuljapur cannot be accepted for the reason that in the petition it is specifically pleaded in paragraph 4 that the Petitioner received information from Ms. Swati Late that the notice dated 13th August 2026 was issued to her on 14th August 2026. In light of the knowledge of the Petitioner about the service of notice on 14th August 2026, in event the Petitioner was in Tuljapur at that time, the Petitioner would have specifically pleaded that on the said date when the notice was served on other councillors, the Petitioner could not have been served as he was at Tuljapur. Petition is silent on that aspect. The contention that 3 days’ clear notice is required to be given as per the provisions of Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act is unacceptable as Patil-SR 4 of 5 13 wp-3990-2026(c).doc there was compliance of Section 81 of the Nagar Panchayats Act and it is only by reason of the intervention of this Court, that the said meeting could not be held. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had complied with the statutory provisions and meeting came to be postponed by reason of the order of this Court. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Chavan that a fresh notice is again required to be given of 3 clear days. It is open for the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to hold the meeting as it is now evident that the notice was served upon the Petitioner who has refused to accept the same and therefore it is a valid service. As the contention of Mr. Chavan is that requisition of meeting and the charges levelled against the Petitioner which is to be discussed in the special meeting has not been served upon the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to serve copy of the same to the Petitioner by the end of the day. 10. In the light of above, there is no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 5 of 5