High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) wp2599.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2599 OF 2025ANUSAYA DYANOBA KASBEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS902 WRIT PETITION NO. 2315 OF 2025SONALI SAVTA RAUTVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS903 WRIT PETITION NO. 2479 OF 2025DNYANESHWARI HANUMANTRAO PATKRAO ALIAS DNYANESHWARIVISHNU KAMBLEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARYAND OTHERS14 WRIT PETITION NO. 1546 OF 2025SAHEBRAO SHIVRAM MAHORE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS24 WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2025KASTURABAI SALA PAWAR AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1671 OF 2025 IN WP/1822/202526 WRIT PETITION NO. 1839 OF 2025SHILPA SIDDHODHAN INGOLEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR HINGOLI ANDANOTHER
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) wp2599.2529 WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2025JYOTI BABAN SANGLE ALIAS JYOTI MHATARDEO DHAYTADAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS49 WRIT PETITION NO. 1950 OF 2025MUJIB HABIB ATARVERSUSTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS17 WRIT PETITION NO. 1773 OF 2025JANARDHAN NAMDEVRAO THORATVERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS42 WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 OF 2025ASHOK NAVNATH MUNDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS43 WRIT PETITION NO. 1922 OF 2025AYODHYA MAHENDRA CHATE DAUGHTER OF SADASHIVE MUNDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERSMr.S.P. Ade, Mr.S.T. Veer, Mr. L.H. Kawale, Mr. R.W. Bagul, Mr. ShrimantMundhe, Mr.R.B. Ade, Mr.M.P. Gandle, Mr.P.S. Agarwal, Ms.S.P. Chate,Advocates for the petitioners in the respective petitions. Mr.S.N. Kendre, Mr. K.S. Patil, Mr. P.P. Dawalkar, Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Mr.K.N. Lokhande, Mr. S.R. Andhale, AGPs for the respondent-State in therespective petitions. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:21.02.2025 ( 3 ) wp2599.25PC :-01.Writ Petition No. 2599 of 2025 is not on Board. Taken onBoard.02.The question falling for consideration in all these WritPetitions is the same and therefore, are taken up together for finaldisposal by consent of the parties. No notice is required to the parties,who are not before this Court.03.All these petitioners, who are Sarpanch/Dy.Sarpanch/Member of the Grampanchayats, have been elected from the ward/seatreserved for the persons belonging to any of the reserved categories. Asper law, they require to submit Validity Certificate issued by the CasteScrutiny Committee. Since the petitioners failed to submit the ValidityCertificate, the learned Collector of the respective districts passed ordersdeclaring the petitioners as disqualified under section 10-1A of theMaharashtra Village Panchayats Act [for short “the said Act”].04.For the purpose of understanding, the facts from Writ PetitionNo. 2599 of 2025 are discussed. The petitioner in this case contested ( 4 ) wp2599.25election to the post of Member of Grampanchayat, village – Mirvat, Tal.Parali, in the year 2022. On 23.12.2022, the petitioner was declaredelected as a Member belonging to a scheduled caste. The petitionerthough, possesses Caste Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer,Parali Vaijnath dated 19.04.2017, no Validity Certificate is obtained. Thepetitioner was, therefore, required to give an undertaking as requiredunder section 10-1A of the said Act that she would submit the ValidityCertificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee within twelve monthsfrom the date of her election. She had applied for verification of hercaste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29.11.2022, prior tofilling up of her nomination form. However, she could not receive theCaste Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee within time.05.Some petitioners also come with a case that the petitionersreceived the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. Theysubmitted Validity Certificate with the Authority soon after they receivedthe Caste Validity Certificate with the respondent-Tahsildar. A ground isalso taken in the petitions to that effect.06.The Government, considering the difficulties in obtaining theCaste Validity Certificate, extended time to submit Validity Certificate. ( 5 ) wp2599.25The last such extension was given by way of the Amendment Act of2023. The time was extended till 09.07.2024. However, even till09.07.2024, the petitioner could not get the Validity Certificate. It is, inthis view, the learned Collector passed the orders declaring all suchpersons who could not produce Caste Validity Certificate, as disqualifiedfrom being Member to Grampanchayat and consequently as Sarpanchand Upsarpanch. The petitioners are, thus, before this Court.07.Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respectivepetitioners and learned AGPs for the respondent-State.08.It is argued by learned Advocates for the petitioners thatbefore passing the orders, the learned Collector did not issue any noticeto the petitioners affording opportunity of hearing. Once the proposal issubmitted for Caste Validity Certificate, it is duty of the ScrutinyCommittee to issue Validity Certificate after due verification. Failure onthe part of the Scrutiny Committee may not be taken as failure on thepart of the petitioners for taking drastic action of removal from the postof Member/Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch of the village. What is material is thestatus of the person belonging to a particular caste. Mere non-production of Validity Certificate is not sufficient to hold that the ( 6 ) wp2599.25petitioners have lost social status as belonging to a particular caste ortribe. In the present case, the petitioners have applied prior to filling upnomination form. Thus, they could not be punished for further inactionon the part of the Scrutiny Committee.09.The learned AGPs vehemently opposed the petitions. It issubmitted that the provisions of section 10-1A of the said Act aremandatory. Looking to the fact that the Scrutiny Committee may takesome time to issue Validity Certificate, the Legislature has purposefullygiven 12 months time to produce such Validity Certificate. Thepetitioners, when contested the elections, were aware of the fact thatthey require to submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Committee.Thus, it is a duty cast upon them to obtain the Validity Certificate.Learned AGP relied upon upon a judgment in the case of Sudhir VilasKalel & Ors. Vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC)99, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the provisions ofsection 10-1A of the said Act has held that the provision is mandatoryand there is no excuse. He further submits that the petitioners areelected representatives and they cannot give any excuse for non-production of the Validity Certificate. Learned AGP justifies the orderpassed by the learned Collector.
Decision
( 7 ) wp2599.2510.To counter the arguments of learned Advocates for thepetitioners in respect of submission of Validity Certificate with theAuthority, learned AGP submits that though there is averment that theValidity Certificate was submitted with the Tahsildar, however, no suchproof is annexed with the petitions. Even the date of such submission isnot mentioned in the petitions. It is necessary for the petitioners tomake a specific averment along with tangible proof of submission ofValidity Certificate. Learned AGPs further submit that the case of suchpetitioners cannot be considered. Mere averment would not be sufficientwhen the petitioners have not even come with the date of suchsubmission, neither have produced acknowledgment of receipt of theValidity Certificate from the office of the Tahsildar. Therefore, it isdifficult to accept the averment that such petitioners submitted CasteValidity Certificate with the Tahsildar.11.Considering the above facts and submissions and specificallyin view of the judgment in the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel (supra), thisCourt holds that no case is made out calling for interference in the theorders passed by the learned Collectors. The Writ Petitions, therefore,stand dismissed with no order as to costs. ( 8 ) wp2599.2512.Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed off.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]snk/2025/feb25/wp2599.25