-: 1 :- wp 9402/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9402 OF 2010 Sou. Padma R. Kokate. ..Petitioner. Versus Addl. Divisinal Commissioner, Nashik Divisin, Nashik & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for R-1 & 2. Mr. M. S. Karnik for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Petition pertains to election to the post of Sarpanch of village Khadangali, taluka Sinnar, district Nashik. The village panchayat of village Khadangali consists of 7 members. The general election to this village panchayat was held on 27/6/2010. Seven persons, including the petitioner and respondent no.4 got elected. The petitioner got elected from the seat reserved for Other Backward Class from Ward No.2. Respondent no.4 got elected from Ward No. 4, an unreserved seat. The post of Sarpanch is reserved for OBC- woman candidate. Election to the office of Sarpanch was scheduled to be held on 12/7/2010. The petitioner filed her nomination. Respondent no.4 contested the general elections from the open/unreserved seat, although she belongs to OBC. She srp -: 2 :- wp 9402/10 also filed her nomination to contest election for the post of Sarpanch. 4th Respondent’s nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer and thereafter petitioner was declared elected unopposed. 2. Respondent no.4 challenged the election of petitioner before the Additional Collector by filing proceeding purportedly under section 154 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Collector conducted the proceeding under the provisions of section 33(5) of the said Act. Collector came to conclusion that 4th respondent’s nomination was illegally rejected. He therefore allowed 4th respondent’s application by setting aside election of the petitioner. This order was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner by an order which is impugned in this petition. 3. Mr. Dilip Bodake, learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions. Firstly, that 4th respondent has not written on her nomination form that she belongs to the OBC; Secondly, that respondent no.4 failed to apply to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of her caste claim, which she ought to have done a day earlier to the date of filing of nomination; Thirdly, the application filed under section 154 of the said Act by respondent no.4 is not maintainable. Lastly, it was contended by -: 3 :- wp 9402/10 Mr. Bodake that scrutiny of the caste claim of 4th respondent is not decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee within the period of 4 months or till today, as per mandatory provisions of section 30-1A of the said Act. 4. Mr. M. S. Karnik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order alongwith petition and copies of annexures thereto, I am of the opinion that the petition is without any merit. So far as the first objection is concerned, Mr. Bodake could not dispute position of law that a person belonging to OBC, though elected from unreserved seat in general election, can contest the election to the post of Sarpanch, which is reserved for OBC. I have perused the nomination form submitted by respondent no.4, which is at page 49. The nomination form requires the candidate to quote the name of Ward from which he/she got elected. The nomination form does not require the candidate to mention/write the class or category to which he/she belongs. Be that as it may, respondent no.4 had annexed to the nomination form her caste certificate issued by SDO, which indicates that she belongs to OBC. She has also submitted her caste certificate to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, -: 4 :- wp 9402/10 Nashik for validation. A copy of the acknowledgment is placed on record. Thus, the first submission of Mr. Bodake stands negatived. 6. As far as the second objection of Mr. Bodake, to the effect that the candidate must submit his/her caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation thereof before the date of nomination is concerned, he relied upon the first proviso to Section 30-1A of the said Act. The said proviso is inserted with a view to allow candidate to contest the election for reserved seat, though he/she is not possessed with caste certificate, provided he/she has applied to Caste Scrutiny Committee, for validation of his/her caste claim. In the present case, respondent no.4 obtained her caste certificate from the competent authority on 9th July 2010 and she has applied to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik for validation of the said claim on 12th July 2010, as 10th and 11sth July were not working days. If the proviso to section 30-1A is read harmoniously with the statement and object for insertion of same, I am of the view that 4th respondent’s nomination could not have been rejected. 7. Third objection of Mr. Bodake is that respondent no.4 challenged the election by filing proceeding under section 154 of the said Act and therefore it was not maintainable. In my opinion the said objection is without any substance. Though the -: 5 :- wp 9402/10 application was purported to have been filed under section 154, the parties understood and dealt with the same as an application under section 33 and the Collector has also treated the same to be an application under section 33 of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner challenged Collector’s order by filing an appeal under section 33(5) of the said Act. This shows that the petitioner also understood that the Collector has exercised powers under section 33(5) of the said Act. 8. The last objection of Mr. Bodake is that the caste validity claim of respondent no.4 is not decided by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik as on today. This submission is required to be rejected since the subject matter of challenge before the Collector and the Additional Commissioner was illegal rejection of nomination of 4th respondent. Whether or not the validity claim is decided within four months is not the question which is required to be decided at present. 9. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I find that both the authorities below have approached the matter from correct point of view. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore dismissed. 10. At this stage, Mr. Bodake prayed for continuation of ad- -: 6 :- wp 9402/10 interim relief granted by this Court earlier. Mr. M. S. Karnik opposed the prayer. However, in the interest of justice, the ad- interim relief granted earlier is continued for the period of eight weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)