Pune: PCMC Cites Legal Provisions to Defend Sept 2 GB Meet as Former Mayor Yogesh Behl Alleges Violation of Rules
Pimpri Chinchwad, 1st September 2026: The Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) has rejected objections raised by former mayor Yogesh Behl over the legality of the general body meeting scheduled for September 2, stating that the meeting is the regular monthly general body meeting and not a special meeting.
The clarification came in response to a legal notice issued by Behl on August 31 through advocate Asim Sarode and Associates LLP to the municipal commissioner, mayor and municipal secretary. Behl had alleged that the administration had violated provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act by including several subjects from the general body meeting that was adjourned on August 20 in the agenda for the September 2 meeting.
PCMC, in its reply, said the law requires at least one general body meeting to be held every month and provides that the mayor can decide the date, time and venue of the meeting in other cases. It said the September meeting was scheduled for September 2 at 2pm following a resolution passed by the standing committee on August 25, which approved taking up subjects related to the emergency response traffic system, parking policy, metro corridors and public toilets, among others.
The civic body said the September 2 meeting had been convened as the regular monthly general body meeting and was not a special meeting as alleged by Behl.
The PCMC also referred to provisions governing adjourned meetings, under which only business or proposals pending from the meeting that was adjourned can be taken up at the adjourned sitting. However, it said the Act does not contain any specific provision stating whether subjects from an adjourned meeting can or cannot be taken up in another general body meeting.
“After examining the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, it is stated that the meeting scheduled for September 2 at 2pm is the regular monthly general body meeting and not a special meeting. There is no specific provision in the Act regarding whether subjects from the adjourned meeting of August 20 can be taken up in another meeting,” the civic body said.
Behl, however, in his legal notice, had claimed that the August 20 general body meeting was adjourned to September 17 without taking up all agenda items and that the pending business could only be considered at the adjourned meeting. He alleged that 18 of the 31 subjects listed for the August 20 meeting had been included in the September 2 agenda.
Behl had demanded that all overlapping subjects from the August 20 meeting be removed from the September 2 agenda and taken up only at the adjourned meeting on September 17. He had also warned of legal action if the civic administration proceeded with the proposed meeting.
