Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2025 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:5649 ( 1 ) wp1820.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD22 WRIT PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2025BALASAHEB DHONDIRAM RASVEVERSUSTHE COLLECTOR BEED AND OTHERS12 WRIT PETITION NO. 1474 OF 2025ASHWINI ROMADE RAMA ALIAS ASHWINI NAVNATH WAGHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS13 WRIT PETITION NO. 1536 OF 2025MANGLA DATTA KASBEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ANDOTHERS15 WRIT PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2025JYOTI PRABHAKAR BAHADURE ALIAS JYOTI UTTAM KADAMVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS18 WRIT PETITION NO. 1781 OF 2025KRANTI RAHUL THORATVERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND OTHERS19 WRIT PETITION NO. 1814 OF 2025KAMALBAI UTTAM BHISEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR AND OTHERS20 WRIT PETITION NO. 1815 OF 2025GANESH VASANTA WAKALE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR HINGOLI ANDANOTHER
Legal Reasoning
( 13 ) wp1820.25applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is for the Scrutiny Committeeto scrutinize the proposal and to issue a certificate within 12 months. Itis responsibility of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to act in time. For in-action on the part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitionersshould not be made to suffer. The petitioners have taken best efforts toobtain the Certificate by filing proposal to the Scrutiny Committee, whichis duly forwarded to the concerned authority.10. During the course of arguments, the learned AGP pointed outthat the disqualification is an automatic. To this submission, the learnedAdvocates for the petitioners submit that if the disqualification isautomatic, then there is no question of passing any order by the learnedCollector. However, when the learned Collector decides to proceed andpass an order of disqualification, then in that case, it is necessary to givea notice and to call for say of the petitioners.11.Learned Advocates for the petitioners rely on the orderpassed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1260 of 2025 [Anusayaw/o. Madhukar Adhav Vs. The Collector, Beed & Anr.] dated24.01.2025. In that case the petitioner had submitted Caste Validity ( 14 ) wp1820.25Certificate in the office of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar’s office had givenendorsement of receipt of Caste Validity Certificate on 04.07.2023. Stillthereafter the learned Collector passed order dated 20.01.2025. It is inthat view of the matter, this Court had issued notice and granted interimrelief, staying operation and effect of disqualification..This Court finds that the facts of the above referred case aredifferent and this order is interim order passed in facts of that particularpetition. There this Court prima facie found that Validity Certificate wasproduced in time. However, it is the Tahsildar, who did not forward orintimate the learned Collector.12.The learned Advocates for the petitioners thereafter reliedupon judgment in the case of Kalmati Ramkrupal Yadav Vs.Chandrapur City Municipal Corporation, 2021 (4) AIR Bom R 788.In that case, this Court at Nagpur Bench considered section 5B of theMaharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. In the said case, though thepetitioner was required to submit the Caste Validity Certificate, he couldnot submit the same. It was the case of the petitioner therein thatbecause of Corona lock-down period, he could not approach the ScrutinyCommittee, though his proposal was pending. Whenever he tried to visit ( 15 ) wp1820.25the office of the Scrutiny Committee, he was not allowed to enter theoffice. The Court observed that the maxim ‘impotentia excusat legem’ isintimately connected with another maxim of law ‘lex non cogit adimpossibilia’ i.e. the law does not demand the impossible. Thus, it isheld that for some period even if a person tried to get a certificate, it wasnot possible for him to get the certificate. It was not possible even forthe Scrutiny Committee to act on the proposals submitted to it, becauseof the lock-down and restrictions imposed by the Government.13.Learned Advocates for the petitioners next relied uponjudgment in the case of Manohar s/o. Manikrao Anchule Vs. State ofMaharashtra & Anr., (2012) 13 SCC 14. In the said case, the Hon’bleApex Court considered the Administrative Law and implied applicability ofnatural justice. It is held that even if no specific provision is there in theAct or in the procedure, if any action is likely to have civil consequences,an opportunity of hearing ought to be given to observe principles ofnatural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court further considered that there isalways right of hearing even if not provided under a specific statute. ( 16 ) wp1820.2514.The learned Advocates for the petitioners further relied uponjudgment of this Court in the case of Alka w/o. Rajkumar KshirsagarVs. Sow. Shalini w/o. Mahadeo Lokhande & Ors. [Writ PetitionNo. 3963 of 2013]. In the said case, the learned Collector had passedorder disqualifying the petitioner therein under section 10-1A of theVillage Panchayats Act, for non-submission of the Validity Certificatewithin stipulated time. Reliance was placed on the judgment of DivisionBench of this Court in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. The Stateof Maharashtra, 2008(2) Bom.C.R.712, wherein it was held thatrequirement of proviso to Section 10-1A is directory. In that caseproposal for validity was pending decision. Therefore, the Court had setaside the order of disqualification. The direction was given to theScrutiny Committee to decide the application within six months.15.Learned AGPs strongly opposed the petitions. It is submittedthat from the wording of section 10-1A, it is clear that the provision ismandatory. Disqualification is automatic. There is deeming provisionmaking such person disqualified with prospective effect. In that view, nofurther specific procedure is required. It is further submitted that it isnot pointed out by the petitioners that as to what prejudice is caused to ( 17 ) wp1820.25the petitioners. Even if opportunity is granted, it was necessary to showthat it would have made any change in the decision or order passed bythe learned Collector. All the petitioners accept that they could notproduce validity certificate within stipulated period.16.Learned AGP relies upon order passed by this Court in WritPetition No. 1127 of 2025 [Bapurao Haribhau Mukade Vs. TheDistrict Collector, Hingoli & ors.], wherein this Court dismissed thepetition for non-submission of Caste Validity Certificate.17.Learned AGP further relied upon judgment of the Hon’bleApex Court in the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. Vs. Bapu RajaramKalel & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 99. The Hon’ble Apex Courtspecifically considered provisions of Section 10-1A of the MaharashtraVillage Panchayats Act.18.Considering above submissions, this Court has to considerthe effect of section 10 (1A) of the Act as to :-(i) Whether the provisions are mandatory? ( 18 ) wp1820.25(ii) Whether the learned Collector is required to give anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner for failing tosubmit Caste Validity Certificate within the stipulatedperiod?(iii)Whether the order suffers from violation of principle ofnatural justice?19.From the wording of Section 10 (1A) of the Act, it is clearlyseen that the provisions are mandatory. The very fact that the legislaturepassed the Act of temporary extension, shows that provisions of section10-1A are mandatory. Therefore, when extension was granted, it wasrequired to be granted by passing an Act by the legislature. Thepetitioners relying on the order passed in Anusaya w/o. MadhukarAdhav [supra] is of no use. Firstly because it is only an interim orderand secondly it was specifically shown to this Court that the endorsementshows that the Certificate was submitted within 12 months from the dateof election and before expiry of extended period. After submission ofValidity Certificate, nothing remained to be done by the petitioner thereinand therefore this Court had granted interim relief.20.So far as judgment in the case of Kalmati Krupal Yadav(supra) is concerned, it was in the facts of that case that this Court has ( 19 ) wp1820.25considered that for some period even Caste Scrutiny Committees werenot in position to take decision on the proposals because of Covidpandemic. Though the petitioner was trying hard and trying to visit theoffice of the Scrutiny Committee, he was not even allowed to enter theoffice. Certainly this was beyond control of anyone and for that thepetitioner could not submit Caste Validity Certificate. The Court hadconsidered that the law would not expect a person to do an impossibleact. This Court finds that said judgment, therefore, is not applicable tothe present petitions.21.So far as judgment in the case of Manohar s/o. ManikraoAnchule (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered theAdministrative Law and the principle of natural justice. Paragraph Nos.23, 24 and 25 of the said judgment reads as under :-23. Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read intothe provisions of Section 20(2). It is a settled canon of civiljurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person becondemned unheard. Directing disciplinary action is an order in theform of recommendation which has far reaching civilconsequences. It will not be permissible to take the view thatcompliance with principles of natural justice is not a conditionprecedent to passing of a recommendation Under Section 20(2).24.In the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. AdditionalMember, Board of Revenue, Bihar [AIR 1963 SC 786], the Court ( 20 ) wp1820.25stressed upon compliance with the principles of natural justice injudicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Absence of such specificrequirement would invalidate the order. The Court, reiterating theprinciples stated in the English Law in the case of King v. ElectricityCommissioner, held as under: “8.The following classic test laid down by LordJustice Atkin, as he then was, in King v. ElectricityCommissioners and followed by this Court in more than onedecision clearly brings out the meaning of the concept ofjudicial act: ‘Wherever anybody of persons having legalauthority to determine questions affecting the rightsof subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act inexcess of their legal authority they are subject to thecontrolling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Divisionexercised in these writs.’Lord Justice Slesser in King v. London County Councildissected the concept of judicial act laid down by Atkin, L.J.,into the following heads in his judgment: "Wherever any body of persons (1) having legalauthority (2) to determine questions affecting rights ofsubjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4)act in excess of their legal authority--a writ ofcertiorari may issue." It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that theremust be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore,exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decideagainst the rights of a party without giving him a hearing oran opportunity to represent his case in the manner known tolaw. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules madethereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justicedemand it. Any such order made without hearing theaffected parties would be void. As a writ of certiorari will begranted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferiortribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts,ex hypothesis it follows that the High Court in exercising itsjurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of theproceedings before it.”25. Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing,even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles ofnatural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is ( 21 ) wp1820.25excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vestthe person with consequences of civil nature..There is absolutely no dispute about this proposition. Thequestion is as to whether it is required to give opportunity of hearing inthe present cases. Secondly, whether by giving an opportunity ofhearing, whether there could have been any change in the decisionmaking. As observed, the provision is mandatory and disqualification iswith retrospective effect. Period of 12 months is specifically given to aperson to make attempt to get the certificate. Therefore, in this view,the judgment in the case of Manohar s/o. Manikrao Anchule (supra)is not applicable. 22.So far as judgment in the case of Alka w/o. RajkaranKshirsagar (supra) is concerned, said judgment needs to beconsidered. However, judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofSudhir Vilas Kalel (supra) is latest judgment and in that view, this Court,with great respect, does not find that the judgment is applicable.23.So far as judgment in the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel(supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that the ( 22 ) wp1820.25provisions of Section 10-1A of the Act are mandatory in nature. If aperson fails to submit Validity Certificate he incurs disqualification withretrospective effect. Paragraph Nos. 36 to 40 of the said judgment readas under :-“36. To answer this question, the object of Section 10-1A and 30-1A of 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, MandakaniKachru 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. 1admitted 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 stood ( 23 ) wp1820.25automatically 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. 1and so 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 alsogo against the object and purpose of extending the time forproduction of the Validity Certificate by further period of twelvemonths from 10.07.2023.38. As is clear from Section 3(1), the further period of twelvemonths from 10.07.2023 was for those whose applications werevalidly filed and pending and where their applications have beensubmitted before the date of nomination. Sub-section (1)(b) ofSection 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 only revives themembership of those, whose applications are pending by enactinga deeming provision, since they are now given a further period oftwelve months from 10.07.2023 to furnish the Validity Certificate.Sub-section (2) (b) clearly states that Section 3(1) was not toapply to members whose applications for Validity Certificate hasbeen rejected by the Scrutiny Committee.39. The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant No. 1that there was no rejection and that it was only a "filing" or"lodgment" of the application on 01-03/04/2021 by the ScrutinyCommittee, does not commend itself to us for acceptance. Therejection in Section 3(2)(b) will also include those cases whereapplications came to be rejected on account of defaults committedat the end of the applicants themselves. An applicant who hascertain things under his control ought to have done everything thatis under his control for the purpose of Section 3 of the TemporaryExtension Act, 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, as
Arguments
( 2 ) wp1820.2521 WRIT PETITION NO. 1819 OF 2025SUDAM DEVRAO ALATVERSUSTHE COLLECTOR BEED AND OTHERS31 WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2025ARCHANA LAXMAN VHARKATE ALIAS ARCHANA UTTAMRAO BANGARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS33 WRIT PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2025MAHADEV LAXMAN PANDITVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS34 WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2025TRIVENI GANGADHAR SHINGARE ALIAS TRIVENI SOPAN GAIKWADVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2025PANCHPHULA BHAGWAN RATHOD ALIAS PANCHPHULA MEGHA CHAVANVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1881 OF 2025TRIGUNA SHRIRAM DHEMBARE ALIAS TRIGUNA BABURAO ABUJVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1889 OF 2025MOHTABAI DHANSING RATHOD ALIAS MOHTABAI REVA PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2025AKASH PRALHAD MANEVERSUS ( 3 ) wp1820.25THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1882 OF 2025NARAYAN SONAJI PARDESHIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2025RATNAMALA SHRIRAM CHAURE ALIAS RATNAMALA ANKUSH DHAITIDAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2025SOJARBAI TUKARAM SASANE ALIAS SOJARBAI DAJIBA DAWAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2025VIJAYMALA GANGARAM KALE ALIAS VIJAYMALA BABASAHEB MANEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2025ANNAPURNA GANGARAM VAJIR ALIAS ANNAPURNA PINJARAM PISALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1880 OF 2025VIJAYA UDHAV JADHAVAR ALIAS VIJAY DNYANOBA MUNDHEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1887 OF 2025MANISHA SUDAM RASAVE ALIAS MANISHA HARIBHAU KATHULEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS35 WRIT PETITION NO. 1890 OF 2025SUNITA JALINDAR LANDGEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ( 4 ) wp1820.25AND OTHERS36 WRIT PETITION NO. 1891 OF 2025BABURAO KISHAN SHINDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS37 WRIT PETITION NO. 1892 OF 2025SANGITABAI NAVNATH GADLE ALIAS SANGITA PANDURANG NAGARGOJEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS38 WRIT PETITION NO. 1893 OF 2025BIJUBAI DNYANESHWAR KHANDEKAR DAUGHTER OF MAHADEV PAREKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS40 WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2025GANGABAI MAROTI BADEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS44 WRIT PETITION NO. 1940 OF 2025MANDABAI UMAJI RATHOD ALIAS MANDABAI SAKHARAM MALIVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETORY AND OTHERS45 WRIT PETITION NO. 1942 OF 2025ARUNA BAPUSAHEB MAHARNOR ALIAS ARUNA BAPPASAHEB KALEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS46 WRIT PETITION NO. 1943 OF 2025SHESHEKALA PRAKASH WAGHMARE ALIAS SHESHEKALA BANSI JAWLEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ( 5 ) wp1820.25AND OTHERS47 WRIT PETITION NO. 1944 OF 2025INDUBAI DATTATRAYA KARE ALIAS INDUBAI TRIMBAK SHINDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS48 WRIT PETITION NO. 1946 OF 2025MIRABAI SADASHIV NEARKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS53 WRIT PETITION NO. 2316 OF 2025VILAS SUBRAO PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS54 WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2025RAJENDRA BHANUDAS JOGDANDVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS55 WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2025MAHENDRA NAVNATH BHALSHANAKRVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS57 WRIT PETITION NO. 2329 OF 2025SUNITA SARJERAO KAMBALE ALIAS SUNITA KACHARU KHUDEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ANDOTHERS58 WRIT PETITION NO. 2330 OF 2025SATVASHILA MUKINDRAO MANE ALIAS SATVASHILA BHIMRAO MAGARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS ( 6 ) wp1820.25WRIT PETITION NO. 2573 OF 2025LAXMIBAI W/O. BHAGWAN THOKE AND ORS.VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.61 WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2025SUMITRA GANPAT DHAPSEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS62 WRIT PETITION NO. 2347 OF 2025SANDIP VINAYAK BANSODEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS64 WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2025SHASHIKALA BABASAHEB ROKADEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS65 WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2025DATTA MAHADEV NIRMALVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS66 WRIT PETITION NO. 2380 OF 2025PARVATI FAKIR PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS67 WRIT PETITION NO. 2382 OF 2025LAXMIBAI LAXMAN VADMAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYAND OTHERS68 WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2025ANKUSH BABURAO KALE ( 7 ) wp1820.25VERSUSTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER912 WRIT PETITION NO. 2548 OF 2025MRS. VIJAYMALA W/O. SUGRIV CHOURE ALIAS VIJAYMALA ALIAS D/O.ABASAHEB TIDKEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS913 WRIT PETITION NO. 2549 OF 2025JYOTI RAVINDRA THOARAT ALIAS JYOTI POPAT SHELARVERSUSTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BEED AND OTHERS914 WRIT PETITION NO. 2551 OF 2025GODAVARI RAHUL KANDE AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWRIT PETITION NO. 2597 OF 2025SMT. BHAGYASHRI DILIP SURVASEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWRIT PETITION NO. 2598 OF 2025SMT. PRATIKSHA GANESH BHANDAREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.Mr.S.J. Salunke, Mr. S.G. Kawade, Mr. Sayyed Tausif Yasin, Mr.R.W. Bagul,Mr.S.S. Londhe, Mr.P.S. Agarwal, Mr.R.B. Ade, Mr. Shrimant Mundhe,Mr.A.R. Tapse, Mr. A.L. Kanade, Mr. D.K. Rajput, Mr.P.K. Wagh, Mr. S.R.Andhale, Mr.M.P. Kale, Mr.S.S. Thombre, Mr. A.L. Kanade, Ms. S.P. Chate,Mr. C.D. Rajput, Mr. R.B. Dhakne, Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Mr.M.P. Gandle,Mr.R.T. Deshmukh, Mr.U.M. Maske, Mr. C.A. Shingare, Mr. L.H. Kawale h/f.Mrs. Nikita Kirjawalkar, Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocates for thepetitioners/applicant in the respective petitions. Mr.K.S. Patil, Mr.P.P. Dawalkar, Mr.K.N. Lokhande, Mr.S.N. Kendre, Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGPs for the respondent/State in the respective petitions. ( 8 ) wp1820.25CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:21.02.2025PC :-01. All these petitions are arising out of orders passed by thelearned Collector of the respective districts declaring the petitioners asdisqualified, under section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village PanchayatsAct (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioners are the personswho have been elected as Member to the Grampanchayat from the seatsreserved for the persons belonging to the reserved category and havefailed to submit their Caste Validity Certificates duly issued by the CasteScrutiny Committee within a stipulated period. Some of the petitionershave also become Sarpanch or Upsarpanch pursuant to becomingmember.02. The respondents are the State of Maharashtra, the Collectorand the Grampanchayats.03. For the discussion, facts from Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2025are taken into consideration for the purpose of understanding. Mainly, ( 9 ) wp1820.25learned Advocate Mr. S.J. Salunke argued for the petitioners and learnedAGP Mr. K.S. Patil argued for the respondent-State.04. The petitioner contested election in 2022 to the post ofMember, Grampanhayat, Longaon from the ward/seat reserved for aperson belonging to Other Backward Class. The petitioner on the date ofnomination was not possessing a Caste Validity Certificate issued by theCaste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner, therefore, filed an undertakingthat he would file such certificate within one year from the date of hiselection. However, no such certificate is produced within one year andeven thereafter till 9th July, 2024. For some period, the StateGovernment realizing that the Caste Scrutiny Committees are heavilyburdened and are not in a position to issue a Caste Validity Certificatewithin a year, extended time to submit such certificates by passingtemporary amendment Act. Last such extension was granted by an Actpublished in Gazette dated 10.07.2023, Maharashtra Act No. 35 of 2023granting temporary extension of period of submitting Validity Certificate.Though the time was extended, still the petitioner could not furnish avalidity certificate. Since the petitioner could not submit Caste Validity ( 10 ) wp1820.25Certificate, he came to be declared as disqualified by the learnedCollector, Beed by order dated 20.01.2025.05. Section 10- 1A of the Act 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 declaredelected, 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.” ( 11 ) wp1820.2506. From reading of the section, it is seen that a person isrequired to submit a Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authorityand the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, along withnomination forms. Secondly, if the person does not have a Caste ValidityCertificate on the date of nomination, but who has applied to the ScrutinyCommittee for verification of his Caste Certificate, before the date offiling of the nomination papers, may submit with the nomination papers,one true copy of the application preferred by him to the ScrutinyCommittee and also an undertaking that he shall submit the ValidityCertificate issued by the Committee, within 12 months from the date ofdeclaration of the result. The second proviso material for consideration isthat if a person fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of 12months, from the date of which he is declared elected, his election shallbe deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and such personbecomes disqualified from being a Member.07. It is thus seen that the Legislature is also aware of the factthat in a given case, a person who is desirous of contesting elections,though belongs to a reserved category, may not be possessing a Validity ( 12 ) wp1820.25Certificate issued by the Committee and therefore 12 months time isgiven to produce such Validity Certificate, provided he has alreadyapplied for such certificate prior to filing of the nomination paper. Thepetitions are therefore to be decided as per the above provisions.08. In all these petitions, it is admitted position that no suchValidity Certificate was produced within12 months. These petitionerscould not produce Validity Certificate even before 9th July, 2024. Fromthe facts of this petition, it is seen that the application was made to theScrutiny Committee on. The nomination was filed along with undertaking.However, no Validity Certificate could be produced within 12 months andalso before 9th July, 2024.09. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners vehementlyargued the petitions. It is submitted that the learned Collector ought tohave granted an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugnedorder. The petitioners are duly elected persons belonging to a reservedcategory. What needs to be seen is that whether the person belongs to aparticular category or not. Merely, non-submission off Caste ValidityCertificate would not take away his social status. When the petitioner had
Decision
( 24 ) wp1820.25explained 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.40. For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellant No. 1stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed toproduce the Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date ofhis election. The protective umbrella of Section 3 of the TemporaryExtension Act, 2023 will not be available to Appellant No. 1 sincehe is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no validapplication pending on the date of the commencement of the saidAct.”24.Thus, considering all the above, there is no manner of doubtthat in the present petitions the petitioners have failed to make out anycase calling for interference at the hands of this Court. This Court has nohesitation in holding that the petitions deserve to be dismissed and thesame are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.25.In view of disposal of the writ petitions, civil applications, ifany, pending also stand disposed off.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/feb25/wp1820.25