1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2007 (Manohar Marotrao Dhakate .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Shri Amol Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 20TH NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard. The facts in brief necessary for deciding this petition are that the caste certificate of the respondent No.5 was verified by the Committee and the Committee held that the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.5 that he belongs to “Gond” community which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe, is valid. On the basis of that certificate dated 21.05.2001, the respondent No.5 filed his nomination paper for election from ward of Municipal Council, Chandrapur. The petitioner was also the candidate in that election. The petitioner admittedly did not raise any objection to the nomination paper filed by the respondent No.5. His nomination paper was accepted. The petitioner and the respondent 2 No.5 contested the election. The respondent No.5 secured more votes than the petitioner and as such he came to be declared elected. The petitioner did not file any election petition challenging the election of the respondent No.5. In stead he has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. In our opinion, the petitioner will not have any cause of action to challenge the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee because the petitioner never put the validity of caste certificate in question either by raising any objection to the nomination paper of the respondent No.5 or by filing election petition for setting aside that election. In our opinion, to give cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the validity of caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, it was necessary for the petitioner to put the election of the respondent No.5 under challenge and to facilitate that challenge, he could have moved this Court by filing petition and this Court will be justified in going into the question as to whether the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee is proper or improper. The petitioner without raising any objection to the nomination paper and without filing election petition to challenge the election of the 3 respondent No.5 would not have any cause of action to file the petition to challenge the validity of the caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. As such, the petitioner cannot be termed as aggrieved person. The petition cannot be entertained. Hence the writ petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.