drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.935/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.935 OF 2010 Jaysing s/o Lalchand Kadam PETITIONER Age-58 years, Occ-Agri R/o Village Baradgaon Dagdi, Tq-Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through Secretary, Rural & Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar Tq & Dist-Ahmednagar 3. The State Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai 4. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny & Verification Committee, Nashik Through its Chairman, 5. Neelchand Pandurang Deokate Age-Village Balewandi, Post at Baradgaon Sudrik Tq Karjat Dist-Ahmednagar ....... Mr.A.S.Zarekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, APP for respondent State Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent No.5 ....... drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.935/2010 [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 25th January 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.2 and 3 to decide the representation, dated 06.09.2010, submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to take proper and legal action against respondent No.5, as per law. At this stage, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in so far as prayer clause “C” is concerned. By praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has prayed for deciding his representation. It would be always open to the authority, while deciding the representation, as to what course of action is to be taken. 3. It appears that the petitioner has submitted the aforesaid representation, which is annexed to the petition as Exhibit-D, dated 06.09.2010. In the aforesaid representation the petitioner has pointed out that the receipt, which was produced by drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.935/2010 the 5th respondent at the time of submission of his nomination form, is forged receipt, in the light of the fact that on 26.07.2010 no proposal was pending before the Scrutiny Committee in respect of verification of the caste / tribe status of 5th respondent. Since the limited relief, which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, is of directions to the respondents to decide the aforesaid representation, we are inclined to allow this petition. 4. We accordingly allow this petition in terms of prayer clause “B” and direct respondents No.2 and 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.09.2010, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Since we have not adverted to the merits of the mater, all questions raised in this petition are kept open. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/cwp935-10