1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4919 OF 2009 Datta s/o Ganpati Kinwad, Age-30 years, Occu:Agriculture and Member of Grampanchayat of Pethvadaj, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Addl. Collector, Nanded, Dist-Nanded, 3) The Presiding Officer and Tahasildar, Kandhar, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded, 4) Ganesh s/o Shankar Shetwad, Age-30 years, Occu: Agri and Member of Grampanchayat Pethvadaj, Tq-Kandhar, Dist- Nanded, 5) Sow. Godavaribai w/o Govind Shinde, Age-40 years, Occu:Household and Member of Grampanchayat Pethvadaj, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Mr.G.R. Ingole Patil Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mr.S.N. Lavekar Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the notice issued by Additional Collector, Nanded, Dist-Nanded dated 17th July, 2009 for holding election of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Pethvadaj, Taluka-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have to submit their caste certificate as required under Section 10-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 within stipulated time from the date of election. He also preferred Appeal before the Additional Collector, Nanded on 21st February, 2009 for declaration that Respondent 3 Nos. 4 and 5 are not eligible candidates to work as members of Grampanchayat, Pethvadaj. On this submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that till the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector, Nanded, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 should not be allowed to participate in the election of Sarpanch and also election to be postponed. 3. Learned counsel for Respondents states that submission of caste certificate as per Section 10-A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 within stipulated time, is not mandatory as held in the matter of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (2) Bom. C.R. Page No.712 and in the matter of Mohd. Akram Sk. Imam vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Other Backward Classes, Amravati and others, reported in 2009 (4) Mh. L.J. Page No.557. 4. It is clear from both the Authorities that submission of caste certificate under Section 10 A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 within stipulated time, is not mandatory. Not only that, 4 learned counsel for Respondent No.5 states that elections are already held on 29th July, 2009. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed summarily. Interim relief granted on 20th July, 2009 and extended on 5th August, 2009 stands vacated. 5. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned A.G.P. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/wp4919.09