Dismissed¶18

Nitin Vijaykumar Shete and Another v. the Urban Development Minister Chief Minister and Others

Bombay HC10 Jun 2025WP/6801/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Aurangabad; writ petition dismissed as academic; disqualification of councillors under Section 10(1-1A) of the Act of 1949; Municipal Corporation Latur; councillors elected 2016, term expired 2021; Administrator appointed, Council not in existence; order dated 07.02.2024 in Case No. LMC-2017/Case No. 369/NV/24; violation of earlier writ petition directions; no effective relief available against ex-councillors.

What did the court decide?

Since respondent Nos. 3 to 17 are at present not holding the office of Councillor, no effective order of disqualification can be passed even if the petitioners' contention is accepted. ¶17

Nitin Vijaykumar Shete and Another Vs the Urban Development Minister Chief Minister and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

909-WP-6801-25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

909 WRIT PETITION NO. 6801 OF 2025

¶4

NITIN VIJAYKUMAR SHETE AND ANOTHER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT MINISTER CHIEF MINISTER AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Avinash N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. P. Joshir, AGP for Respondents-State

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶9

DATE : 10.06.2025

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

. The petitioners take exception to the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. LMC-2017/Case No. 369/NV/24, and also pray that the application dated 07.11.2016 filed by them be allowed, and that respondent Nos. 3 to 17 be declared disqualified under Section 10(1-1A) of the Act of 1949, by issuing appropriate writ or direction.

¶12

It is not in dispute that respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were elected as Councillors of the Municipal Corporation, Latur, in the year 2016, and that their term expired in 2021. At present, for want of elections, Administrator has been appointed, and the Council is not in existence. In this background, the learned

¶13

1 of 2

¶14

(( 2 )) 909-WP-6801-25

¶15

Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 3

¶16

to 17 incurred disqualification due to their illegal act of supporting the resolution and violating the directions of this Court passed in a writ petition in the subject matter.

¶17

It is true that Section 10(1-1A) provides for disqualification of a Councillor for misconduct, and once he is held guilty, such disqualification may continue for a period of up to six years from the date of the disqualification order. However, the fact remains that, at present, respondent Nos. 3 to 17 are not holding the office of Councillor. Therefore, even by accepting contention of the petitioner, no effective order can be passed. The issue raised in the writ petition appears to be merely academic and does not require adjudication on merits

¶18

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶19

[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ]

¶20

HRJadhav

¶21

2 of 2

Nitin Vijaykumar Shete and Another v. the Urban Development Minister Chief Minister and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Vijaykumar Shete and Another v. the Urban Development Minister Chief Minister and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimashankar Janardhan Khobare vs Ghatneshwar Shivling Khobare

Pandharinath Dashrath Chavan and Another Vs Kadar Mahboob Mansuri (Died) Thru. Lrs. 1A. Yusuf Kadar Pinjari and Others

Pandharinath Dashrath Chavan and Another Vs Husainbhai Fate Mohammad and Another

Rajpath Infracon Private Limited through Authorized Officer vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Sanjay Narayan Hange Vs P. D. Chavan and Another

Bapurao Arjun Ladhane Thrugh Gpa Santosh Bapurao Ladhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others