1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2607 OF 2010 Mahendra s/o Sambhaji Nukkalwar & others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.G.R.Syed, advocate for petitioners. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 5. Mr.U.S.Malte, advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2010. P.C.: 1 The nomination papers submitted by petitioners for contesting election to the membership of village panchayat, as against the seats earmarked for reserved category candidates, have been turned down by the Returning Officer on the ground of non fulfillment of mandatory requirement under Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 2 Petitioners intend to contest election to the post of member of village panchayat as against the seats earmarked for reserved category. As per the mandatory requirement laid down under Section 10-1A of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the nomination paper of a candidate desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward class of Citizens, shall be accompanied by Caste Validity Certificate. 2 3 In the instant matter, admittedly, nomination papers tendered by petitioners were not accompanied by caste validity certificates. It is contended that respective petitioners have tendered separate applications to the Tahsildar along with all necessary documents requesting him to forward papers to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for consideration of their claim in respect of issuance of caste validity certificate. It is contended that the Tahsildar has failed to forward proposals received by him and as such, prejudice has been caused to petitioners. However, failure on the part of Tahsildar to forward applications to Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be a ground for directing acceptance of nomination papers. Section 10-1A prescribes a mandatory requirement that the nomination paper shall be accompanied by caste validity certificate and in the circumstances, as stated by petitioners, such relaxation cannot be permitted. It is also to be taken note of that even petitioners did not tender their applications six months prior to proposed elections as per the requirement laid down by the State Government. However, reasons given by the petitioners in respect of their failure to submit caste validity certificates, while tendering nomination papers, cannot be taken into account in the absence of any provision in that behalf in respect of grant of such relaxation. Petition is devoid of merit. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 4 Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp260710