1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4738 OF 2009. ( Chhotibai Dhanlal Katre -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.K.Thakkar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri N.W. Sambre learned G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri D.P. Lilhare, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Contention of petitioner, a Sarpanch is that she was elected as Member of Gram Panchayat from open category on 21.06.2005. On 01.08.2005 she contested the election for the post of Sarpanch as a woman belonging to reserved category i.e., O.B.C. and was elected. The provisions of Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act came into force on 21.12.2006, and as per those provisions a person desirous of contesting election is 2 required to comply with the stipulations therein. The provision was not applicable to the petitioner as she was already elected. It is further contended that Section 10-1A is not applicable to the election of Sarpanch and the provisions of Section 30-1A are applicable. Those provisions are added on 09.01.2009 and had the petitioner contested the elections thereafter, compliance therewith was essential. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand contends that intention of the legislature must be looked into and as the effort was to see that person not belonging to reserved category should not occupy such responsible elective post, the obligation on petitioner to submit necessary validity certificate arise after the respective amendment came into force. He argues that if the provisions are not interpreted accordingly, the persons not belonging to reserved categories will continue to enjoy the post. It is apparent that matter pertains to election and is therefore regulated by the statute. The provisions under which action has been taken against the petitioner contemplate that a person who wants to contest the election after the amended provisions came into force, has to comply with it. Here petitioner was already elected as Sarpanch on 01.08.2005 i.e. before Section 10-1A or Section 30-1A, were 3 brought into force. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to accept the arguments of learned Government Pleader. However, if there are any other provision in Bombay Village Panchayat Act, which do not permit a person without caste validity to continue to occupy the post of Sarpanch, it is apparent that the respondents can take appropriate action against the petitioner under said provision or any other law. Hence, subject to such liberty to respondent in the matter, the order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Gondia is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is thus allowed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.