2026:BHC-AS:6225-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.8 OF 2026 Sandeep Pandurang Patil .. Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Urban Development Dept. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar with Mr. H.S. Pawaskar, Mr. S.M. Modak and Mr. A.S. Patil, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. S.H. Kankal, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.3-KDMC.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2026.

P.C. :

Seeking quashing of all the amendments made by the State Government to section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 after the Maharashtra Act No.41 of 1994 was amended, the petitioner claims that the amendments so made by the Maharashtra Act No.41 of 1994 are in violation of the main provisions of the said Act.

2. Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Public Interest Litigation is concerning the rights of the electorates. The act and omission on the part of the Government of Maharashtra in not increasing the number of elected councillors, though there has been significant increase in population, have seriously affected the democratic rights of the electorate. After having gone through the order dated 6^th May 2022 in Public Interest Litigation No.6 of 2022 and the order passed in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.19756 of 2021 with Writ Petition (Civil) No.234 of 2022, we hold that the filing of this Public Interest Litigation is an abuse of the process of the Court and the petitioner is liable to be saddled with exemplary costs.

3. The petitioner who is a resident and a registered voter within the territorial limits of the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, along with other citizens claims to be affected by any enactment reducing the number of Councillors, alteration in the ward structure, delimitation or system of representation having a direct and substantial impact on their fundamental right to participate in free, fair and transparent elections as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 243-U of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks to quash and set aside the Maharashtra Act No.XLIII of 2022 and the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2024.

4. The Maharashtra Act No.41 of 1994 amended the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 wherein the powers of the State Government as contemplated in section 5(3) of the said Act to decide the number of boundaries of the wards along with the number of Councillors from each ward were conferred upon the State Election Commissioner. Thereafter, by virtue of amendment to section 5(3) of the said Act through the Maharashtra Act XXI of 2022, the power of delimitation earlier vested exclusively in the State Election Commissioner was sought to be made exercisable by the State Government with the approval of the State Election Commissioner. Subsequently, the State Government amended the proviso to section 5(3) of the said Act through the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2024 introducing as far as possible four Councillors but not less than three and not more than five Councillors. By virtue of the Maharashtra Act No.XLIII of 2022, the State Government amended the table of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said Act thereby reducing the number of elected Councillors and wards. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the State Government by virtue of the Maharashtra Act No.41 of 1994 divested itself of the power under section 5(3) and vested the same exclusively in the State Election Commissioner, it ceased to have the authority to exercise such power. Consequently, any subsequent amendment made by the State Government to section 5(3) of the said Act is de hors its legislative competence and is therefore liable to be set aside.

5. The petitioner filed a