PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed and set aside the State Election Commission’s September 9, 2026 notification on municipal ward delimitation.
The order indicated that the mandatory statutory requirement of consulting the government could not be bypassed in the haste to meet a court-mandated deadline. The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar upheld the contention raised by petitioner Sudeep Dhargalkar that the SEC had issued the notification without completing the mandatory consultation with the government under Section 10(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act, as amended. A detailed order is expected on Friday. "... consultation with the Government is a necessary and mandatory step under the Act, and Respondent No. 2, (SEC) in an attempt to comply with the directives issued by this Hon'ble Court, has chosen to override the said statutory mandate and has in a hurried manner proceeded to publish the Impugned Notification without completing the crucial step of consultation with the Government," the petitioner, represented by Adv Shivam Desai and team said. The petitioner had also submitted that the draft delimitation was published on July 24, 2026, inviting objections for 30 days, while the High Court’s August 25 directions required the process to be completed by September 9. However, the file was forwarded to the government for consultation only on September 4 and, even then, without the complete material required for an effective consultation.
The petitioner argued that the SEC could not, merely because of the court-directed timeline, proceed in a manner that rendered the mandatory consultation illusory or ineffective. The petitioner also pointed to notings showing a vast difference in the number of voters assigned to some wards within the same municipality, arguing that the disparity warranted reconsideration of the delimitation before it was finally notified.
The petition further contended that the impugned notification was arbitrary and ex facie illegal as it bypassed the mandatory requirement of consultation under Section 10(3), and sought its quashing and setting aside.
