1 wp 9832.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9832 OF 2011 Macchindranath S/o Laddu Pawar, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Tardi, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, Collector Office, Jalgaon. 3. The Caste Certificate Verification and Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Region, Dhule, through its Secretary/Member .. Respondents (The Respondent No. 3 is deleted as per order dt. 22.12.2011.) Shri A. B. Madke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Respondent No. 3 is deleted. 2 wp 9832.11 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 is deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat on 05th September, 2010. Thereafter, he was elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner had submitted his caste certificate for verification through Tahsildar Parola as per the election programme and the said documents were forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It appears that the caste claim of the petitioner is validated on 14.12.2011. During the interregnum the petitioner is disqualified by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the validity certificate within seven months as per the proviso (as it stood then). The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present writ petition. 3 wp 9832.11 4. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Choudhari, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The fact that the proviso is directory and not mandetory is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Dadasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 (2) Bom. C. R. 712. 5. In view of the same, the petitioner could not have been disqualified on the ground that he has not submitted the validity certificate within seven months. The caste claim of the petitioner has been validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 14.12.2011. 6. In view of that, the impugned order cannot be sustained and as such is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11