1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4950 OF 2010 Shri Dadge Karna s/o Santram Age major, Occ. Agriculture R/o Mohgaon, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division No.3, Latur, through Chairman/ Member Secretary. 3. The Collector, Collectorate, Latur. 4. The Tahsildar and the Returning Officer for Elections to Gram Panchayat, Mohgaon, Renapur, District Latur. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.U. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 ..... WITH 2 WRIT PETITION NO.4952 OF 2010 1. Sau. Gangubai w/o Keshav Mundhe, (Kum. Gangabai d/o Baburao Jaybhaye) Age 28 years, Occ. Household, 2. Sunanda w/o Shivdas Chate, (Kum. Sunanda d/o Anandrao Mundhe), Age 47 years, Occ. Household. 3. Sau. Rekhatai w/o Bandu Ghobale, (Kum. Rekhatai d/o Rangnath Landge), Age 25 years, Occ. Household, All r/o Anterveli, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Gramvikas Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served in the office of Govt. Pleader, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. District Collector/ Returning Officer for the elections of Anterveli Grampanchayat, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. 3. Divisional Social Welfare Officer, (S.C./VJNT/OBC Caste Scrutiny Committee), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Near Cidco Bus Stand, Aurangabad District Aurangabad. 4. State Election Commission, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Standing Counsel), High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioner 3 Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 9th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at this stage. 2. These petitions have been filed by the two aspiring candidates for the forthcoming elections of the Grampanchayat, the last date of submission of nomination papers being 12.6.2010. According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4950/2010, the proposal had been forwarded by the competent authority to the Scrutiny Committee in 2005 when the petitioner came to be elected. From 2005 till today, no steps had been taken by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste status of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by the Tahsildar in the month of April 2010 that the proposal of the petitioner was returned back by the Scrutiny Committee on a wrong assumption that the petitioner had been defeated in the election. The proposal of the petitioner, therefore, came to be submitted afresh to the Scrutiny Committee which the Scrutiny Committee has either declined to accept it or has declined to proceed further. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Scrutiny Committee be 4 directed to decide the caste status of the petitioner prior to 12.6.2010 as 12.6.2010 is the last date for submission of the nomination papers. 3. In Writ Petition No.4952/2010, the petitioners claim that their proposals are pending with the Scrutiny Committee since March 2010/ May 2010, the petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents to accept their nomination forms de hors the caste validity certificates. 4. The learned A.G.P., on instructions, stated that it is virtually impossible for the Scrutiny Committee to decide the proposals and to complete the verification process of the caste status of the petitioners prior to 12.6.2010. We, therefore, partly allow Writ Petition No.4950/2010 by directing the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste status of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today. We also direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 22.6.2010. 5. Insofar as the relief prayed for in Writ Petition No.4952/2010 is concerned, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted to the petitioners as it would be contrary to the statutory provision, which mandates the submission of the validity certificate along with the nomination paper. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued contrary to the statutory provision. In that light of the matter, therefore, Writ Petition No.4952/2010 stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. 5 6. Writ Petition No.4950/2010 is partly allowed as indicated above. The petition stands dismissed insofar as the alternate prayer made by the petitioner at prayer clause (C) to the petition. 7. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.) Authenticated copy ( F.M. Pathan ) Private Secretary