Plea challenges nomination of 10 NMMC corporators; Belapur court issues notices

Once the petitioner alleged that the appointments violate statutory provisions governing nominated corporators, the court on Monday issued show-cause notices to the respondents

Navi Mumbai: A petition filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) court in CBD Belapur challenges the nomination of 10 corporators to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC). Once the petitioner alleged that the appointments violate statutory provisions governing nominated corporators, the court on Monday issued show-cause notices to the respondents.

Plea challenges nomination of 10 NMMC corporators; Belapur court issues notices

The petition was filed on February 27 by Ulwe-based independent journalist and social activist Rajeev Mohan Mishra, who has named 16 respondents in the case. These include the state urban development department, NMMC municipal commissioner Kailas Shinde, mayor Sujata Suraj Patil, leader of the house Sagar Naik, leader of opposition Vijay Chougule, and the 10 nominated corporators.

According to Mishra, the nominations were announced during the first general body meeting of the NMMC on February 20, the first session of the newly constituted NMMC house. At the time, the mayor appointed 10 nominated corporators under provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. These include Kuldeep Suri, Bharat Khatke, Jagjivan Vasant Keni alias Bandu Keni, Aparna Navin Gavate, Amit Midkar, Laxmikant Patil, Dwarakanath Bhoir, Sahil Chougule, Suresh Bhalerao and Ankush Kadam.

In his petition, Mishra alleged that the nomination process violated the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualification and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2012, and provisions of the constitution that govern the eligibility and disqualification of municipal representatives.

A key objection raised in the petition concerns the inclusion of Gavate and Keni, who the petitioner alleges were involved in unauthorised constructions and had been served notices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act by the NMMC.

The plea also states that Gavate had earlier been disqualified from being a corporator in 2016 by the then NMMC municipal commissioner in connection with alleged illegal construction.

The petition further argues that allowing individuals facing action or notices from the civic body to become part of the municipal corporation’s decision-making structure could create a conflict of interest and undermine public confidence in civic governance.

Explaining his decision to approach the court, Mishra said he filed the petition after he found out that the legal procedure for appointing nominated corporators had not been followed.

“After examining the rules and qualifications prescribed for nominated corporators, it became clear that the selection was made arbitrarily and without proper scrutiny of eligibility criteria or adherence to the legal procedure from nomination to declaration,” Mishra said. He added that the law requires nominated corporators to be individuals with specialised knowledge or experience in fields such as municipal administration, law, health, education, chartered accountancy or social welfare.

“The purpose of appointing nominated corporators is to bring subject experts into the corporation to assist elected representatives in decision-making. Ignoring such provisions defeats the intent of the law,” Mishra said.

Advocate Kishor Sunder Shetty, representing the petitioner, argued that documentary evidence on record supported the plea for disqualification. “The recommendation and consequent appointments were made in contravention of statutory provisions and the 2012 rules,” Shetty said. “The commissioner failed to exercise statutory powers in a fair and transparent manner and acted without proper application of mind.”

Shetty argued that if the nominated corporators continued to hold their posts, it could create a conflict of interest, particularly if they were subject to proceedings initiated by the municipal corporation.

Hearing the interim application, civil judge K N Phatangare observed that respondents 7 to 16 must be given an opportunity to present their case before any stay on their functioning is granted.

The court then issued notices directing the respondents to explain why the petitioner’s plea should not be allowed and posted the matter for further hearing on April 1, 2026.

Meanwhile, the respondent corporators have dismissed the allegations and denied any wrongdoing, stating that they will respond to the claims before the court.