1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3414 OF 2009 Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Maksood Ansari ...PETITIONER. V E R S U S The state of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Jadhav, A. G. P. for the respondent – State. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to prohibit the petitioner from participating to the extent of casting vote in the election of President Municipal Council, Partur, Dist. Jalna scheduled to beheld on 12.06.2009. 2. The facts as are necessary to decide this petition may briefly be stated thus :- 2 The petitioner came to be elected as a Councilor of Municipal Council, Partur from Ward No.8 on a seat reserved for O.B.C. candidate. The caste certificate of the petitioner came to be invalidated by the scrutiny committed by its judgment and order dated 14.02.2007. The petitioner obviously being aggrieved by the judgment of the scrutiny committed invalidating his caste claim, filed writ petition No.1146/2007 in this Court. At the time of admission of the writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court issued notices to respondents and stayed the order of the scrutiny committee in so far as it related to the directions of initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner. It also appears that subsequently, the petition came up for admission before Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court issued Rule making Rule returnable forthwith. The Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.06.2007 indicates that this Court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee and remitted the matter to the scrutiny committee for a decision afresh. This Court was impressed by the fact that validity certificates had been granted to the close relatives of the petitioner. In the said judgment, the Division Bench also at paragraph No.5 came to the conclusion that only protection to which the petitioner was entitled to was stay to the directions of the scrutiny 3 committee regarding initiation of criminal prosecution. The Division Bench further came to the conclusion that “petitioner is deem to have vacated the post to which he was elected.” The petitioner being aggrieved by the contents of paragraph No.5 of the Judgment filed review application i.e review petition No.65 of 2007 before this Court. Review petition came to be heard and by order dated 4th August, 2007 the Division Bench allowed the review application and directed that “it is clarified that no other protection is granted. The petitioner is deemed to have vacated the post to which he was elected” stands omitted from paragraph No.5 of the judgment. It further appear that as respondents to the review application, being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench allowing review application, filed a petition for special leave before the Supreme Court. From the perusal of the order of the Supreme Court which is annexed to this petition as exhibit ‘E’ it appears that Supreme Court granted stay to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4th August, 2007 allowing the review application. As a result of the stay, therefore, findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 28.06.2007 holding that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated the post to which he was elected stands revived. 3. The petitioner though has not been disqualified cannot 4 now participate in the proceedings of the council particularly in the elections to the post of President which is scheduled to be held on 12.06.2009. The petitioner therefore, has filed present petition seeking the reliefs to which we have adverted to above. 4. According to us, in the light of the fact that the Supreme Court has stayed the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in review application, findings of the Court in its judgment dated 28.06.2007 that the petitioner is deemed to have vacated the post to which he was elected stands revived. In the light of those findings, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief which the petitioner has prayed for though the petitioner contends that he has not been disqualified. Thus, we find no interference can be made by this Court in this petition and resultantly this petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R. K. DESHPANDE ) ( P. V. HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE ..... aaa/office/wp3414.09 5