1 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.: 10238 OF 2010 Jibhau So Zaga Pawar, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o Surpani, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 10244 OF 2010 Laxman S/o Vasant Sonawane, Age: 28 years, Occu.: Agrilcuture, R/o Surpani, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER. AND WRIT PETITION NO.: 10245 OF 2010 Smt. Dhupa Bhikan More, Age: 40 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Surpani, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad). 2. The Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. 3. The Additional Collector, Dhule. 4. Tathya S/o Hari Thakre, Age: years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o Surpani, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS 2 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 [COMMON RESPONDENTS IN ALL PETITIONS] *** Mr. Barde, Advocate holding for Mr. J. R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. R. Korde Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S. B. Tiwari, Advocate h/f Mr. N. N. Desale for Respondent No.4. *** CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7th JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Barde holding for Advocate J. R. Shah for all three petitioners, Advocate Mr. S. B. Tiwari holding for Shri N. N. Desale for Respondent No.4 and learned A.G.P. Mr. D. R. Korde Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. By placing reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of "Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve V/s State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2008 (2) Bombay C. R. 712, learned counsel for Petitioners has urged that the provisions of section 10 (1) (C) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 cannot be read as mandatory. The petitioners no doubt filed 3 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 undertaking along with their nomination that in case they are elected they will submit the certificate of validity issued by competent caste scrutiny committee within a period of four months but then the process took time and certificate has been produced immediately after it was received. The certificate has been thus produced in all matters after about eighteen months of the undertaking. Learned counsel states that because claim of all petitioners has been found to be valid, mere delay in submitting validity certificate cannot be fatal to their election and they cannot be declared disqualified on that account. 3. Learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Tiwari for Respondent No.4, support the impugned orders. They contend that after furnishing an undertaking it cannot lie in mouth of petitioners that provision is not mandatory. They further contend that more than reasonable time was taken by petitioners to produce caste validity certificate and the competent officers like Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have found petitioners disqualified on that 4 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 count. 4. The result of election has been declared on 23rd December, 2008. As per the procedure then prevailing, petitioners furnished undertaking and declared that in case of their election, they will produce the requisite caste validity certificate within a period of four months. Discussion in the impugned order nowhere shows that they have deliberately adopted dilatory tactics and did not permit caste scrutiny committee to decide the matter. The consideration of this issue by Division Bench in the judgment reported (supra) particularly para 21 shows that similar provision appearing in Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, Bombay Village Panchats Act are found to be only directory. The Division Bench has found that though the provisions are held to be directory, that does not mean that elected candidate can go on seeking adjournment before the scrutiny committee at the time of hearing and continue 5 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 to hold the post to which he is elected. An impostor and a fraudster, who does not belong to a backward class, would always try to seek adjournments before the scrutiny committee so as to continue to reap the benefits of reservation. In such case, appropriate authority would not be powerless to declare his election to be terminated retrospectively on his failure to produce caste validity certificate within a reasonable time of four months. The Division Bench has also added in that, if, however, for no fault of his, the scrutiny committee is unable to decide on the validity of his caste certificate and actually decides his claim say after about 5-6 months instead of 4 months, the period of 4 months cannot be held to be mandatory. 5. In view of this law, as laid down by Division Bench, it is apparent that in present facts when caste certificates of all the petitioners have been found valid by the competent scrutiny committee, only because that adjudication has come after expiry of period of four months, their election could not have been cancelled. The impugned 6 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 orders, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, on 20th September, 2010 and 28th June, 2010 respectively are therefore unsustainable. Same are accordingly quahse3d and set aside. Petitions are allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:-07/01/2011. ans/10238 7 writ petition nos. 10238, 10244 & 10245 of 2010 WRIT PETITION NO.: 10238, 10244 & 10245 OF 2010 Date of decision: 7th JANUARY, 2011. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. DHARMADHIKARI. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE