1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2010 KIRATRAM KASHIRAM BARSE. -: versus :- COLLECTOR GONDIA AND ANOTHER. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 16, 2010. 1. The matter is for final disposal. Advocate Shri Borkar places reliance on the provisions of Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act to urge that as nomination papers for the post of Sarpanch filed by respondent No.2 was not accompanied by caste certificate issued by competent authority and validity certificate issued by Scrutiny Committee, the same was rightly rejected by Returning Officer in election meeting conducted on 12.09.2008. He states that in view of this position as the petitioner was only contesting candidate and he was elected as ward member from reserved ward, he was declared elected as Sarpanch. According to him, the Additional Collector has in election petition under Section 33(5) erroneously interfered in the matter and his order dated 25th 2 November, 2008 shows non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed and set aside. He, further points out that order has been maintained in appeal by the Additional Commissioner on 1st December, 2009 but then order suffers from same vice. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand states that the petitioner never objected to nomination paper of respondent No.2 on the ground that he does not belong to Other Backward Classes. Case of respondent No.2 as belonging to Other Backward Classes was never in dispute and hence, in view of this admitted position, the Collector as also the Additional Commissioner have set aside rejection of nomination paper. 3. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have perused order of the Additional Collector dated 25th November, 2008, which shows that there was no dispute before him that respondent No.2 was elected as member of general post but he belongs to Kunbi caste recognized as O.B.C. In view of this admitted position the said authority has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasambhai Vs. Chandubhai, reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 815 and set aside the rejection of nomination paper. 3 4. Advocate Shri Borkar has tried to show to this Court that the petitioner never accepted the status of respondent No.2 as belonging to reserved category. However, even in proceedings of election meeting the Presiding Officer has not recorded that nomination paper of respondent No.2 was objected to by the petitioner. In these circumstances, insistence upon compliance with Section 10- 1A is misconceived. The section has been enacted only to prohibit candidates not belonging to reserved category from getting themselves elected. When the caste claim of respondent No.2 was never in dispute before any of the Authority, mere non-filing of the said certificate by him cannot be held to be fatal at this stage. The petitioner had opportunity to show that finding of the Additional Collector about admitted status of respondent No.2 is incorrect when he filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner. However, there is no such effort made in that appeal. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE RR