1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1627/2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1628/2008 Dhnanjay S.Patil Petitioner Vs. Assistant Registrar,Co-op.Societies Respondents Kolhapur and Ors. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar,G.P.for Res.1 to 6 Mr.Rajaram Shewale,Secretary of Res.no.2 present Mr.Ashok Tajane for Res.3 Mr.D.V.Sutar for Res.4 CORAM : V.C.Daga,& Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date : 24th February,2009. P.C. . Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. Since the Government Pleader on behalf of respondent no.1,the Secretary of Respondent no.2, who is present in person, Respondent no.3 representing Mr.Ashok Tajani, respondent no.5 representing Mr.D.V.Sutar have waived their services on behalf of the respective respondents. 2] The petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5 are the members of the respondent no.2 society . The elections for electing the members electing the members of managing committee of respondent no.2 for the period 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 were due in 2 the month of March,2008. Respondent no.2,therefore,prepared election programme and forwarded it for approval to respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 approved the election programme on 22/2/2008 for electing the managing committee members of respondent no.2. 3] The process of filing of nomination form as per election programme commenced from 12/2/2008. The petitioner filed his nomination from the borrowers constituency whereas respondent nos.4 and 5 also filed their nominations for the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes . 4] The Respondent no.4 has produced the certificate issued by the Talathi certifying that respondent no.4 belongs to ''Hindu Mahar'' caste, which is notified scheduled caste. Respondent no.4 also applied for issuance of caste certificate to the Regional Caste Scrutiny Committee,Kolhapur which at the relevant time did not exist. Consequently, the application of respondent no.4 for verification of caste was submitted to the office of District Social Welfare Officer,Kolhapur on 21/2/2008. 5] The petitioner objected to the nomination form of the respondent no.4 on 28/2/2008 on the ground that respondent no.4 does not belong to scheduled caste. The petitioner on 28/2/2008 applied for the copies of proceedings. The copies were not given. Consequently the petitioner has filed this petition raising several contentions. 3 6] The petition was heard on 13/3/2008.This Court after issuing notice before admission was pleased to grant ad interim order in terms of prayer clause 'c'. With the result respondent no.3 has declared the election results on 31/3/2008 of all the constituencies except that of two constituencies one reserved for scheduled caste and another meant for backward class .The notification in this behalf has also yet not been issued by respondent no.2. 7] During the course of hearing all the parties agreed that let there be scrutiny of the caste claim of respondent no.4 by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee,the respondent no.6. 8] Looking to the consensus between the parties, we direct respondent no.6 or the appropriate Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste claim of respondent no.4 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice. In the event the caste claim of respondent no.4 is certified to be that of the person belonging to the reserved category , in that event,nomination forms would be treated as valid one and shall be treated as validly nominated candidate. In the event of invalidity of the certificate,the nomination form shall be deemed to have been rejected. In either of the event,the parties may resort to their legal remedies as may be available in Law. All the contentions in that behalf are kept open. 4 9] Respondent no.4 is directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 3/3/2009.The scrutiny committee is directed to fix the date of hearing and may also hear the petitioner,if the petitioner appears for hearing on due date. 10] Needless to mention that so far as respondent no.4 is concerned he will have to make available all the certificates to the scrutiny committee .If due to non-co-operation of respondent no.4, his caste claim could not be decided within stipulated period respondent no.4's nomination form would be deemed to have been rejected with the expiry of the period given herein for adjudication of caste claim. 11] Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (V.C.Daga,J.)