1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.375/2010 Sow Varsha Dinkar Raut .. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... WRIT PETITION NO.376/2010 Shivputra Baburao Halange .. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors ... RESPONDENTS .... WRIT PETITION NO.377/2010 Sow.Sangita Sakharam Satwadhar ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS .... 2 WRIT PETITION NO.378/2010 Anil Kashinathrao Kshirsagar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. RESPONDENTS .... WRIT PETITION NO.379/2010 Asha Pundlikrao Chate .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.L.Jadhav,Adv.for petitioners in all petitions Shri N.B.Khandare,GP. for respondent nos.1,3 & 4. Shri S.T.Shelke,Adv.for Respondent no.5. ... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE :19/01/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] The relief claimed in these petitions and the question raised being identical, the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3 2] The petitioners belong to the backward class, for whom the reservation has been prescribed in the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats. In the present petitions, we are concerned with Nagar Panchayats. It is the case of the petitioners that by Government Notification dated 31/8/2009, issued under the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, the Kaij Gram Panchayat was dissolved, and at its place, came to be constituted Nagar Panchayat. After the constitution of Nagar Panchayat, the elections of Nagar Panchayat are declared and according to the election programme, the last date for submitting the nomination papers is 27/1/2010. 3] By filing these petitions, the petitioners have claimed that in the first place, no sufficient time was granted to the petitioners, to procure the caste validity certificate, which is required to be submitted alongwith nomination form. Reliance is placed on Government Resolution dated 17/11/2009, which provides the steps to be taken by the Collector, so that reasonable opportunity is made available to the interested candidates. The Government Resolution lays down that 6 months prior to the declaration of the election programme, the interested candidates are supposed to make an appropriate application to the Collector, with a view to have their caste claims validated. The 4 Collector is obliged to receive the applications and send them to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt. 4] Perusal of the Government Resolution leaves no room of doubt that the said Government Resolution expects the Collector to bring the fact to the notice of the desirous candidates that they need to have the caste certificates validated. The caste scrutiny committee is also expected to decide caste claim of persons interested in contesting the election expeditiously. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, no sufficient time was made available to the petitioners, to comply with the requirement of the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Nagar Panchayat’s Act. Section 9(a) provides that every person desirous of contesting the election to a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or as the case may, backward class category, shall be required to submit alongwith nomination form, caste certificate issued by the competent authority and the validity certificate issued by the scrutiny committee in accordance with provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The said Act regulates the verification and validation of the 5 caste certificates by the scrutiny committee. In the present case, as yet none of the petitioners have forwarded their caste certificates to the scrutiny committee. When the Collector tendered the certificates and other documents collected from the petitioners to the scrutiny committee, the scrutiny committee returned the same by saying that it is not possible to have the caste claims scrutinized at such a short notice. It is objected to by the committee that as the petitioners did not submit the caste certificates and other documents 6 months prior to the holding of the election, the Committee is unable to verify the caste claims. In the said background, present Petitions have been filed. 5] The settled position is that Election Law is a statute law. There is no right at an election in common law or under the Constitution. The requirement of Section 9(a) is that the nomination paper must be accompanied by caste certificate and caste validity certificate. Thus it would not be possible for this Court to permit petitioners to fill in the nomination forms which are not accompanied by caste validity certificates. If it so permitted, the order would violate Section 9(a). The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the caste scrutiny committee, to decide the caste claim of the petitioners before 25/1/2010 i.e. within less than one week. It is a matter of common knowledge that the scrutiny committee need to decide the caste claim 6 in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case. As yet rules are not framed. It is also matter of common knowledge that verifications of caste claim consume atleast a period of about 3 months, as reasonable opportunity has to be made available to the claimants and unless report is obtained from vigilance cell, in appropriate cases. We do not see any purpose being achieved by directing the Scrutiny Committee to complete the caste verification process within less than a week. 6] For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petitions and we decline to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. In the result, Writ Petitions are summarily dismissed. 7] It is needless to mention that the scrutiny committee may consider the claim of the petitioners in ordinary course. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [A.P.DESHPANDE] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp375-10