bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7696 OF 2008 Mrs.Rashmi Ramesh Pahudkar ... Petitioner v/s Mrs.Asha Vasantkumar Anchan & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar with Mrs.Helan Mandlik for the respondent No.1. Mr.A.J.Bhor for the respondent No.2 Corporation. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH DECEMBER, 2008 10TH DECEMBER, 2008 10TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Small Causes Court in Municipal Election Petition No.145 of 2007 declaring her election as a Corporator to be null and void. Respondent No.1 has been declared elected as a consequence. 2. The petitioner claimed that she belongs to the Shetty Community which is included at Sr.No.171 in the list of Other Backward Classes (in short, "the O.B.C.") 2 for the years 1976, 1996 and 2006. The petitioner was elected to Municipal Corporation in Ward No.114. Her caste certificate was sent for verification and it was found that she did not belong to the O.B.C. Her election as a Corporator, was set aside. The petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee right upto the Supreme Court. Thus, it must be accepted that she does not belong to the O.B.C. The election petition filed by respondent No.1 was only on the basis that the petitioner did not qualify for the post of Corporator in view of the fact that her Caste Certificate had been rejected and it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that she did not belong to the O.B.C. The Scrutiny Committee had concluded that Serial No.171 in the list included the Kurhin Shetty community and not the Shetty community. 2. A contention is raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that she was not permitted to call a witness in order to examine him. It is contended that the petitioner had at no point of time closed her evidence and, therefore, the Court ought to have permitted her to lead the evidence even after the evidence of Bhojraj Govindrao Gondole was recorded on her behalf. 3 3. A perusal of the evidence of witness No.3 for respondent No.3 in the election petition i.e. the petitioner herein, which is annexed to the petition, indicates that after the cross-examination of her witness by the advocate for respondent No.1 herein the petitioner closed "his evidence". It is submitted that the petitioner being a woman, could not have closed "his evidence" as recorded by the learned Judge. It is further submitted that no purshis was filed by the petitioner indicating that she had closed her evidence. An application was filed by the petitioner on 24.9.2008 for reopening her evidence. However, no reasons were given in that application for reopening the same and instead the application merely states that she wishes to examine one more witness. By an order passed on the same day, the Court has recorded that the petitioner had in fact closed her evidence on 5.9.2008. Significantly, that order has not been challenged at all by the petitioner either in an earlier writ petition or in the present writ petition. Therefore, the order passed on 24.9.2008 continues to hold the field. 4. The next contention raised is, had the petitioner been given an opportunity to lead evidence she would have been able to demonstrate that she did in fact belong to the O.B.C. 4 5. All these submissions cannot be accepted as it has been held that she does not belong to the O.B.C. which decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been confirmed right upto the Supreme Court. 6. Writ petition rejected.