FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 WRIT PETITION NO. 9932 OF 2010 “Ashwini Arun Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Miss Maya Jamdhade Advocate for petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for the Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation (R-4) --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9596 OF 2010 “Lata Sidharth Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Mr.G.G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent NO.1 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9286 OF 2010 “ Ram Sayajirao Veer Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Mr. Shirish G. Sangle, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9589 OF 2010 “Bhimrao Rupaji Dolas Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the respondent No.1. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9555 OF 2010 “Anusaya Anurath Jankawade and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others' Mr. P.K. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr. Murar V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2010 “Mohd. Sikandar Mohd. Maulana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others” Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Murar Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Corporation. -------- CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE :- 22ND OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT :- 1] All these petitions, basically raise a challenge to the provision which requires the validity certificate to be submitted alongwith the nomination paper. In some of the petitions, the constitutional validity of Section 5B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 has been challenged. 2] The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Municipal Commissioner has himself published a circular asking the caste certificates to be submitted prior to 6 months of election and that if the scrutiny committee does not decide the matter and issue validity certificate, the petitioners cannot be deprived of contesting the elections. 3] Section 5B of the B.P.M.C. Act, reads thus :- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 “Person Contesting election for reserved seats to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate :- Every person desirous of contesting election to a sear 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 Certificate Act, 2000.” 4] The challenge to the validity of Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, which is pari materia with the provision of Section 5B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Council Act, fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of “Bipinchandra Shahurao Thombre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others” reported in 2010(2) Bom.C.R. 656, has held that there is no substance to the challenge of Section 9A of the Act. The Division Bench, in unequivocal terms has held that so long as the said section is on the statute, it mandates the presentation of the caste certificate and validity certificate alongwith the nomination papers. It has further held that, the said condition cannot be diluted or ignored merely because of the fortuitous circumstances in which the petitioners have been placed. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 5] In view of the observations made by the coordinate Bench of this court dealing with a ditto provision under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 the challenge to the validity of Section 5B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 will also fail. It will have to be held that it is mandatory to present a caste certificate and validity certificate alongwith the nomination paper and hence, the contention of the petitioners will have to be rejected. 6] In that view of the matter, the petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed. In view of the disposal of the petitions, no orders are necessary in the civil applications. The same are also disposed of. . Needless to mention that the interim relief, if any, shall stand automatically vacated. 7] Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [A.A. SAYED, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 5