Writ Petition No. 2480 of 2025 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
( 1 ) wp2480.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 WRIT PETITION NO. 2480 OF 2025SACHIN ASHOK SALAPPA AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS907 WRIT PETITION NO. 2486 OF 2025CHANDRAKALA BABURAO GUNJALE ALIAS CHANDRAKALA SHIVAJIKUSALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANOTHER908 WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2025SONALI TRIBANK HANUMANTE ALIAS SWATI SACHIN KASABEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER909 WRIT PETITION NO. 2488 OF 2025SHUSHAMA RAMSING KABRE ALIAS SHUSHMA NITESH KOKANEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANOTHERMr.Sachin S. Deogude and Mr. Anil P. Piratwad, Advocates for thepetitioners in the respective petitions.Mr.K.N. Lokhande, Mr.S.N. Kendre, Mr.K.S. Patil and Mr. K.B. Jadhavar,AGPs for the respondent-State in the respective petitions.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:21.02.2025PC :-01.The petitioners in these petitions are the persons whocontested elections to the post of the Member, Village Panchayat fromthe seat reserved for the persons belonging to the respective reserved ( 2 ) wp2480.24category. However, they were not possessing a Caste Validity Certificateissued by the Competent Authority. The learned Collector by way of ageneral order dated 31.01.2025/20.01.2025 in respective petitions heldthe petitioners disqualified to hold the post of Member for non-submission of Caste Validity Certificate within a stipulated period. Saidorder was passed in view of section 10 (1A) of the Maharashtra VillagePanchayats Act, which reads as under :-“10-1A)Person contesting election for reserved seat tosubmit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate.Every person desirous of contesting election to a seatreserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the casemay be, Backward Class of Citizens, shall be required to submit,alongwith the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by thecompetent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by theScrutiny Committee in accordance with the provisions of theMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notifiedTribes (Virmukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classesand Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance andVerification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. Provided that, for the General or by-elections for which thelast date of filing of nomination falls on or before the 31stDecember 2022, in accordance with the election programmedeclared by the State Election Commission, a person who hasapplied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his CasteCertificate before the date of filing of the nomination papers butwho has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing ofthe nomination papers shall submit, alongwith the nominationpapers,—(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him tothe Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate orany other proof of having made such application to the ScrutinyCommittee; and(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within aperiod of twelve months from the date on which he is declared
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) wp2480.24elected, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee :Provided further that, if the person fails to produce theValidity Certificate within a period of twelve months from the dateon which he is declared elected, his election shall be deemed tohave been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualifiedfor being a member.”02.From reading of the section, it is clear that if a person fails toproduce Caste Validity Certificate, within one year from the date of hisnomination or election, he will be deemed to have incurreddisqualification. The Government of Maharashtra by a Notification dated10.07.2023 had extended said period by one year i.e. till 09.07.2024. Inthe present case it is seen that the proposals for Validity Certificateswere sent/submitted after the said cut-off date. Learned Advocates forthe petitioners vehemently argued that before passing the order, nonotice was given by the Collector. There is violation of principle ofnatural justice. Getting Validity Certificate is not in the hands of thepetitioners. What needs to be seen is as to whether the petitionersbelong to particular reserved category. No such opportunity was givenby the Authority. The orders are, therefore, challenged on this count.03.Learned AGP vehemently opposes the petitions. He reliesupon order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2025. Inthe said judgment this Court has held that provisions of section 10 (1A) ( 4 ) wp2480.24are mandatory and no relaxation can be given except by theGovernment. This Court finds that this judgment is clearly applicable tothe present case. Learned AGP also relies on para Nos. 36, 37 and 39 ofthe judgment in the case of Sudhir Vikas Kalel vs Bapu RajaramKalel 2024 LiveLaw SC 99, which reads as under :-“36. To answer this question, the object of Section 10A and 30-1Aof the Panchayats Act along with Sections 3 and 4 of theTemporary Extension Act, 2023 ought to be borne in mind. As hasbeen correctly held in Anant H. Ulahalkar (supra) while reiteratingthe holding in Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), ordinarily, the rule is foran aspiring candidate in an election to submit the Caste Certificateand the Validity Certificate along with the nomination. However, awindow of twelve months was given for those who have notobtained the Validity Certificate to furnish the same and this washeld to be a “risk” that the applicants were taking. Under the CasteCertificate Act, 2000, the certificate attains finality only if it isauthenticated with a Validity Certificate. That statute and schemehave been discussed herein above. From those who aspire tocontest for a reserved seat and who take a risk of applying for thevalidity certificate by filing an application before the date ofnomination, it is prudent to expect that they will show utmost duediligence in the prosecution of their application. This would meanthat they are expected to do all that is within their control to doand submit with the Scrutiny Committee a valid application fortheir consideration. In fact, it was on the basis that applicantsaspiring to contest election who do not possess a ValidityCertificate, were taking a risk, that the provisions were held to bemandatory. Further and independent of the above, MandakiniKachru Kokane (supra) which came on 27.10.2020 well before theAppellant No.1 filed his nomination clearly mandated that therewas an obligation on the applicants before the Scrutiny Committeeto furnish the declaration of the results within two weeks of thedeclaration of the results for expeditious disposal. In this case,results were announced on 21.01.2021. Under the law, as itobtained in Maharashtra, as laid down in the statute and in thejudgments of the Court, there was an obligation to furnish thevalidity certificate on or before 20.01.2022. The Appellant No. 1 ( 5 ) wp2480.24admitted in the second application filed on 14.06.2023 that inspiteof possessing the declaration of the result, for some reason, hecould not file the same with the Scrutiny Committee. Theconsequence was that on 20.01.2022, the Appellant No.1 stoodautomatically disqualified as a Member with retrospective effectfrom the date of his election, under Section 10-1A of thePanchayats Act. On 01-03/4/2021, under Rule 17(2) and 17(3) ofthe Caste Certificate Rules, the applications were ‘filed’ for notsubmitting of the notification of his election. It is pertinent to notethat the said order was never challenged by the Appellant No.1 andso it has attained finality.37. To hold that – in spite of the Appellant No.1 not doingeverything required to be done, and which were under his controlto do – his application before the Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee was still pending on 10.07.2023 for the purposes ofSection 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, would be lettingthe Appellant No.1 take advantage of his own wrong. It will also goagainst the object and purpose of extending the time forproduction of the Validity Certificate by further period of twelvemonths from 10.07.2023.39. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant No.1 thatthere was no rejection and that it was only a “filing” or “lodgment”of the application on 01-03/04/2021 by the Scrutiny Committee,does not commend itself to us for acceptance. The rejection inSection 3(2)(b) will also include those cases where applicationscame to be rejected on account of defaults committed at the end ofthe applicants themselves. An applicant who has certain thingsunder his control ought to have done everything that is under hiscontrol for the purpose of Section 3 of the Temporary ExtensionAct, 2023. This would also mean that Section 3(1) of theTemporary Extension Act, 2023 would not apply since there was novalid application filed before the nomination to the ScrutinyCommittee and which was pending. That his application was notpending, was also the undertaking of the Appellant No.1, asexplained hereinabove. Accepting the contention of the AppellantNo.1 would also amount to putting a premium on the concessiongiven to a party who was taking the ‘risk’ of contesting the electionby not having a Validity Certificate on the date of the nomination.”
Decision
( 6 ) wp2480.2404.In view of the above, this Court finds that no case is madeout to call for interference in the impugned orders. The Writ Petitionsstand dismissed with no order as to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/feb25/wp2480.24