Naser Khan v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Mar 2010
- Bench
- S V GANGAPURWALA
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
2. The State of Maharashtra The Returning Officer for Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Elections, Aurangabad.
3. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.W.Munde, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader.
Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF
JUDGMENT:
29/03/2010 2 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
Heard respective counsel for the parties. The petitioner had filled in the nomination form from Ward No. 27 – Shatabdi Nagar, Aurangabad as a candidate for the general election of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The said Ward was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate.
The petitioner claims that he belongs to Bhangi caste, which is recognized Scheduled Caste. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the Caste Certificate of the petitioner vide its Judgment and Order dated 28/8/2000. The petitioner had challenged the said Judgment by filing Writ Petition No. 3085 of 2001. However, Writ Petition came to be dismissed vide the Judgment and Order dated 23/10/2001.
The petitioner filed Special Leave Appeal before the Apex Court challenging both the Judgments. The Apex Court has granted stay to the orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee.
It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the pendency of proceedings before the Apex Court and further that the 3 Judgment of the High Court has been stayed which had confirmed the Judgment of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner has right to contest the election and the Returning Officer committed an error in rejecting his nomination form vide its Order dated 23/3/2010.
Section 5 (b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 mandates that the validity certificate has to be produced along with the nomination form. Admittedly, no such validity certificate is produced by the petitioner. The Apex Court has not passed any order allowing the petitioner to contest the election, merely staying the order of this Court would not have the effect of caste claim being validated.
In the light of this aspect, no fault can be found with the order of the Returning Officer. The Writ Petition being devoid of merit, is summarily dismissed. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2681.10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — s. 5(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Mar 2010. The bench was S V GANGAPURWALA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.