Postponing The Nominated Councillors' Meeting Was For A Collateral Purpose
Ulhasnagar's Mayor indefinitely postponed the meeting to appoint nominated councillors after letters from lawyers for disqualified members. The Bombay High Court has quashed the decision and ordered a fresh meeting.
The Court held the Mayor exceeded her authority and acted for a collateral purpose, defeating the statutory mandate under Section 5(2)(b) of the Municipal Corporations Act and the 2012 Rules to nominate councillors. The lawyers' objections were ex facie contrary to law, since the councillors stood disqualified once their caste certificates were invalidated. The postponement was quashed and a fresh meeting ordered within 15 days.
- A statutory meeting is not optional. Nominated councillors must be appointed as the rules require.
- Seeking a legal opinion was a pretext, the Court found.
- Disqualification applies at once when a caste certificate is invalidated, even while challenged.
- The Commissioner acted mechanically and was criticised too.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- W.P. No. 12116 of 2026
- Case
- W.P. No. 12116 of 2026
- Decided
- 11 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition partly allowed; postponement quashed and fresh meeting directed
The postponement
After general elections to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation in January 2026, the corporation was required to nominate councillors with special knowledge of municipal administration. A special general body meeting for that purpose was called for 11 September 2026, with nominations to be received on 7 September.
Lawyers for two councillors, disqualified after the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated their caste certificates, wrote objecting. They said their challenges were pending in the High Court and that their group's strength had fallen from four to three for the nomination.
The Mayor then postponed the meeting indefinitely, saying she was seeking a legal opinion, and the Municipal Commissioner followed suit. A party group leader and a prospective nominee challenged it.
Why the Court quashed it
Section 5(2)(b) of the Act, read with Rules 3 and 5 of the 2012 Rules, requires the corporation to nominate councillors at a meeting held soon after one month from the notification of election results, on the Commissioner's recommendation after consulting party leaders. The process was already excessively delayed.
It was not open to the Mayor to postpone that statutory meeting merely because the disqualified councillors' group would be prejudiced. The lawyers' reasons were ex facie contrary to the law under which councillors are deemed disqualified once their caste certificates are invalidated.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling that a Mayor's power to cancel a meeting must be exercised in good faith and for the Act's purposes, the Court held the Mayor had acted for a collateral purpose on the pretext of seeking legal advice, and that the Commissioner had acted mechanically.
The directions
The Mayor's decision and the Commissioner's communication were quashed.
A fresh special general meeting to appoint nominated councillors must be convened, with a fresh date for accepting nominations. At the corporation's request, allowing for the Ganesh festival, it must be held within 15 days.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a Mayor indefinitely postpone a meeting to nominate councillors?
Not for a collateral purpose. The Court quashed such a postponement here.
Does a pending challenge stop a caste-certificate disqualification?
The Court held the disqualification operates by law once the certificate is invalidated.
If a statutory civic meeting is put off
- Identify the provision that requires the meeting and its timeline.
- Ask what lawful reason, within the Act, supports the postponement.
- Challenge postponements based on objections that are contrary to law.
- Seek a direction fixing a fresh date, not just quashing.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, W.P. No. 12116 of 2026, decided 11 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in