Bombay High Court
WP/4939/2026 of YAKUB ISHAQU SHAIKH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. A.G.P. HIGH COURT A.S. AND ORS. on 6 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4939 OF 2026 Yakub Ishaqu Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through A.G.P. High Court, A.S., Mumbai and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr.
57-WP-4939-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4939 OF 2026
Yakub Ishaqu Shaikh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through A.G.P.
High Court, A.S., Mumbai and Others
...Respondents
——————
Mr. Mohammad S. Mulla – Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Ravi P. Kadam – B Panel Counsel for State / Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare – Advocate for Respondent No. 5
Mr. Vishwanath Patil – Advocate through VC, a/w Mr. Someshwar Wale and Mr. Jagdish Garud – Advocate for Solapur Municipal Corporation ——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : October 06, 2026.
P. C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the election of Respondent No. 5 on the ground of disqualiication for being elected as Councillor under Section 10(1D) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, premised on a notice which was issued as regards unauthorised construction alleged to have been carried out by the returned candidate.
2. Perusal of the communication at page 86 would, irstly, indicate that the same is addressed to Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur, and not to Respondent No. 5. SG Punde 1 of
57-WP-4939-2026.doc
3. The contention is that Respondent No. 5 is the President of the said Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Manch, Solapur.
4. Be that as it may. Considering the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as the challenge is to the disqualiication of Respondent No. 5, who is declared to be elected as a Councillor and whose election is sought to be disputed, the Petitioner has the remedy of iling an Election Petition under the provisions of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
5. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The Petition stands dismissed.
6. Needless to clarify that all the rights and contentions of all the parties are kept open. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] SG Punde 2 of