(1) WP. 6481.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2010 Janabai w/o Pandurang Pole .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6482 OF 2010 Pandurang S/o Madhavrao Pole .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By these Petitions, the petitioners are seeking intervention of this Court in the process of election. The petitioners filed nomination forms which were not accompanied by any evidence regarding forwarding of their caste certificate to the Caste (2) WP. 6481.2010 Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of verification. The petitioners thereafter filed true copy of the application on 18.7.2010 (“P-39”). The nomination forms were submitted on 16.7.2010. Counsel would submit that as per requirement and in view of the Government resolution dated 8.6.2010, the nomination form could be accepted if the candidate had undertaken to produce caste verification certificate within a period of four months. 2. Considering the requirement of section 10-1(A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 coupled with the relevant Government resolution, two things are clear. First, as on the date of submission of the nomination form, the candidate ought to furnish an undertaking that he would produce the caste validity certificate within a period of four months and has already applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for such purpose. Secondly, the candidate must also file true copy of such application made to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of seeking validation of the caste claim. (3) WP. 6481.2010 3. Counsel would submit that he filed affidavit to the effect that on 16.7.2010 applications were submitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of the caste claim and that he was ready to file such copy of the application on the next day i.e. 17.7.2010. According to the learned counsel, the statement made on affidavit by itself is sufficient evidence regarding the filing of such application for caste validation certificate. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. It is well settled that affidavit cannot be treated as evidence inasmuch as it is not covered by any of the categories enumerated in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, plain reading of section 10-1(A) reveals that the concession is granted for production of the true copy of the application preferred by the candidate to the Scrutiny Committee under the proviso appended below section 10-1(A). It is quite clear that proviso is incorporated for the purpose of making out exception and therefore it is not possible to grant exception (4) WP. 6481.2010 unless the condition enumerated under the proviso are strictly complied with. Nobody can claim concession as a matter of right. The concession can be claimed only and only if the particular legal standards are satisfied. 4. In the present case, the petitioners did not accompany true copy of the application forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at the time of filing of the nomination application. What is required under the proviso is to submit evidence regarding filing of application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on or before the date of the submission of nomination paper. The subsequent act of filing such application will not cure the defect. The petitioners submitted copy of the application dated 16.7.2010 on 18.7.2010. The outer limit for filing of the nomination paper was of 16.7.2010. So, it emerges from the record that the petitioners first filed the nomination form, thereafter submitted the application on the date of scrutiny and therefore, the conditions enumerated in the proviso were not complied with in stricto sensu. (5) WP. 6481.2010 Under the circumstances rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners cannot be faulted with. In any case, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the rejection order in case election Petitions are filed after the election. With these observations both the Petitions are disposed of. Certified copy expedited at the request of the counsel. Parties may act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp