1 wp 3017.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3017 OF 2011 Sundardas S/o Vithal Harkal, Age : 56 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Rastapur, Tq. Newasa, District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Nawshad Sayyad Miya Sayyad, Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Rastapur, Tq Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 4. Gram Panchayat, Rastapur, Tq. Newasa, District Ahmednagar, Through its Gram Sevak. .. Respondents Shri V. D. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri P. V. Ambade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 4 served. 2 wp 3017.11 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Rastapur Gram Panchayat. He had contested the election from Ward No. 2 from reserved seat i. e. O.B.C. category. The present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed an application on the ground that the present petitioner had incurred disqualification as he has not produced the caste validity certificate. The Collector upheld the contention of the present respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has assailed the said orders in the present petition. 3. Shri Hon, the learned counsel submitted that along with the nomination form the petitioner had produced the caste certificate and the receipt showing that the proposal is forwarded. It was not the fault of the petitioner, if the validity proceedings were not decided by the Committee. The proposal 3 wp 3017.11 was misplaced, so a fresh proposal was sent and thereafter during the pendency of the petition even the validity certificate is issued. As such, there is no impediment for the petitioner to continue as a member. According to the learned counsel the Commissioner and Collector have gone on wrong premise while passing the impugned orders. 4. Shri Ambade, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the proposal was sent on 29.03.2011 and within seven days the validity is issued. The same is doubtful. According to the learned counsel in view of the provisions as operating at the relevant time, the petitioner stood disqualified as he did not produce the validity certificate within four months. According to the learned counsel no error is committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders. 5. The person who is elected, he cannot be disqualified except according to the provisions enumerated in the statute. Section 10(1)(A) has been held to be directory and not mandatory. Moreover the proviso which lay down a duty on the candidate to produce the validity certificate within four months is also deleted. As such, there is no provision wherein the petitioner is 4 wp 3017.11 required to produce the validity certificate within a stipulated period. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already produced the validity certificate in this Court issued by the competent authority. As such, the said objection also does not survive. In the light of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11