1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5672/2011 Mohammad Shabbir Ali Vs.State of Mah. And others. With Writ Petition No.5082/2011 Abdul Salam Sheikh s/o Siddique Ahmad Sheikh Vs. State of Mah. And others. With Writ Petition No. 5708/2011 Sau. Latabai V. Wankhede Vs. The Collector, Akola and others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Adv. for the petitioner (WP NO.5670/11) Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for the petitioner (WP No.5082/2011) Mr. R. Dhore, Adv. for the petitioner (WP No.5708/2011) Ms. Dangre, Addl G. P. for respondent-State (WP Nos. 5670/11 and 5082/2011). Mr. Thakre, AGP for respondent-State (WP No. 5708/2011) CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ DATED : 21st NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard. In the light of express language of Section 9A of Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) And Industrial Townships Act, 1965, challenge is to two circulars by which State Government directed that candidate desirous of contesting elections against reserved category post must apply for obtaining cast validity, at least six 2 months in advance before the date scheduled for such election. The Scrutiny Committee has been given time bound directions to complete process of verification. Here petitioner contends that accordingly he applied before six months i. e. 31st March 2011 and he has received only one communication i. e. 9.11.2011 by which Scrutiny Committee has returned his claim back informing that because of lacunae noted by it, the application could not be verified. The lacuna noted is that there is no document prior to 1961 showing that the petitioner belongs to “Chhappar Bandh community. Advocate Mardikar and other learned Advocates urged that a blood relative of the petitioner is given certificate belongs to “Chhappar Bandh” community. The judgment delivered by this Court had taken view that wherever words “Shah” or “muslim” appears, the certificate needs to be 3 validated. He further contents that the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad has already found that when it was beyond power of the petitioner to obtain such validity certificate, the condition to his detriment cannot be put and allowed to operate. He further relies on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 (2) Bom. C.R. 712) to urge that such condition is held to be directory. He points out that on 22nd November, 2011 is the last date prescribed for submission of nomination papers. Respective learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 opposes the petition. They contend that only challenge in the present petition to the circulars which are noted above. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State of Maharashtra, considered the provisions which 4 itself contained mechanism and modalities to be followed, if such validity certificate was not issued within the stipulated time. They urged that, that part has now been deleted from Section 9-A. The learned counsel further state that here the Scrutiny Committee has applied its mind in the matter and has returned back the matter on 9.11.2011 for removing lacuna. Having heard the respective counsel, we find that in the entire petition, there is no challenge to Section 9-A. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 cannot overlook the mandate of that provision. In absence of that challenge, we are not in a position to grant any relief. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. However, petitioners are free to take recourse to any other remedy as are open to them in law. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.