(1) wp8746-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8746 OF 2011 Veena Gajanan Thakur @ Veena Kiran Thakur PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, advocate holding for Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. Y.K. Bobade, advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Tope, advocate for Respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent No. 4 - the Tahsildar/Returning Officer to accept the nomination form of the petitioner to contest the elections from Ward No. 12 of Bhusawal Municipal Council, without insisting upon the validity certificate as required under section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, "the M.M.C. Act"). (2) wp8746-11 2. Shri Golegaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that insofar as the Village Panchayats are concerned, the Government of Maharashtra itself has issued an Ordinance of 8th June, 2011 whereby it is provided that if a candidate has applied for grant of Validity Certificate to the Scrutiny Committee and was not issued the Validity Certificate prior to the last date of submitting the nomination paper, his/her nomination paper could be accepted on the condition that such a candidate submits a proof of submitting the proposal to the Scrutiny Committee and an undertaking that he/she shall submit the Validity Certificate within four months from that date and further that in the event the candidate does not produce the Validity Certificate within a period of four months, the election of such a candidate shall stand cancelled with retrospective effect. Shri Golegaonkar submits that the Government of Maharashtra cannot have a discriminatory attitude. He submits that when the State Government has given such a concession in case of Gram Panchayat, there is no reason why the State (3) wp8746-11 Government should not have given such a concession even in case of Municipal Councils. 3. By now, it is settled position of law that right to contest an election is neither a constitutional, nor fundamental nor a common law right. It is consistent view that right to contest an election is purely a statutory right. In that view of the matter, as to what conditions should be imposed for eligibility of a candidate to contest an election is purely within the domain of the Legislature. 4. The Legislature can very well provide different qualifications for different elections which are governed under different Statutes. Merely because a particular qualification is relaxed in a particular Statute cannot be a ground, atleast for interference by this Court, to insert such a concession in another Statute. If we do so, it will be purely an encroachment upon the domain of the Legislature. It is exclusively for the Legislature to consider whether such a relaxation could also be granted in the case of elections which are governed (4) wp8746-11 under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The provisions of Section 9A of the said Act, which exist as of today, read as under : "9A. Person contesting election for reserved seats to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate - Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may be, Backward Class of Citizens, shall be required to submit, alongwith the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certification Act, 2000." 5. Thus, we find that the reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp8746-11 (5) wp8746-11