FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/2080/2010 SHIVRAM V/S STATE 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. Indisputably, the petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch and got elected from the post reserved for Other Backward Classes candidate but the caste validity certificate was not annexed with the nomination paper. The petitioner was elected as a Member of the aid Gram panchayat from OBC category in the 2005. Said election was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Collector. The Collector did not accept the objection raised. Finding recorded by the Collector is that in the year 2005 when the petitioner was elected as a Member, amended provisions of Sections 30(1)(a) were not there. 3. Decision of the Collector was challenged in Appeal No.118 of 2009 by respondent No.5 before the learned Additional Commissioner, Nasik. It came to be allowed and order of Collector was quashed and set aside. The Collector, Jalgaon was initiated to take steps for election of Sarpanch. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the reasons recorded by both the authorities below. 5. Factually, learned counsel for the petitioner admit that along with nomination of Sarpanch, the petitioner could not produce the copy of caste validity certificate. He further makes a statement that recently has received the validity certificate Copy is given to learned FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS counsel for respondent. It is also made available to this Court. It is taken on record and marked Exhibit "X" for identification. This certificate appears to have been issued on 23.2.2010. Indisputably, this validity certificate issued by the competent authority was not available and annexed with the nomination paper. I see no perversity in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner declaring election of the petitioner invalid as a Sarpanch on that day i.e. on 8.9.2009. 6. Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this declaration that the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch is illegal, is confined to the date and ground which was available to respondent No.5 on 8.9.2009 only. Dt.11.3.2010 (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) akl