1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7379 OF 2010 Gopal s/o Rambhau Yadav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 17th August 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to hold the inquiry about the genuineness of caste certificate submitted by respondent Nos.6 and 7 along with their nomination forms and to take appropriate action against them for submitting forged and fabricated caste certificates. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 to restrain respondents 6 and 7 from participating in the special meeting scheduled on 19th August 2010 i.e. tomorrow for elections of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Gangawadi village panchayat, Taluka Georai, District Beed. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of 2 mandamus directing respondent No.5 to postpone the meeting dated 19.8.2010 till inquiry about the caste certificates submitted by respondent Nos.6 and 7 along with their nomination forms is completed. 2. Obviously, this is a petition in public interest. The petitioner claims to be an elected member of the village panchayat, who questions the genuineness of the caste certificates submitted by respondents 6 and 7. This is not a petition for enforcement of any private rights and, therefore, has to be looked upon as a petition in public interest. The above object of filing the present writ petition is to stall the meeting scheduled to be held tomorrow for the purposes of electing the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. A species plea advanced before us that the certificates submitted by respondents 6 and 7 during the general elections of grampanchayat are forged and fabricated documents. We do not see this petition as a bona fide public interest litigation. We are also informed that an election petition has been filed questioning the election of respondents 6 and 7, albeit by other defeated candidates and not by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner have adequate alternate remedy available in law for establishing the fact that the certificates produced by respondents 6 and 7 are forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner may, if advised resort to the remedies available to the petitioner in law. 3 4. We do not see any merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/7379.10wp)