High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 59-wp 4723-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 4723 OF 2025Bandu Nana Pawar.. PetitionerVersusThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others.. RespondentsMr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.Mr. Ravindra V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATED : 07th APRIL, 2025. P. C. :- .Heard learned advocates and learned A.G.P. appearing forrespective parties. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.2.The petitioner is directly elected as Sarpanch of GrampanchayatJategaon, Taluka Georai, District Beed as belonging to OBC category.He is elected in general elections held in December 2022. In view ofSection 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short “thesaid Act”) the petitioner was required to submit his caste validitycertificate within one year from the date of his election. The petitioner,however, could not get the caste validity certificate and therefore, he isdeclared as disqualified by the learned Collector, Beed by order dated 1 of 7 2 59-wp 4723-2025.odt12.03.2025. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.3.The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that,notice was required to be given to the petitioner before passing orderdated 12.03.2025. He submits that, the petitioner is directly electedSarpanch and therefore, Section 30-1A of the said Act would beapplicable. The action is taken without there being any fault on the partof the petitioner. The petitioner had already sent a proposal for gettingvalidity certificate to the committee. Getting the validity certificate isnot in his hands. He thus submits that, the impugned order deserves tobe quashed and set aside. He relies upon the judgments in the cases ofGangubai Laxman Bansode and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 and Mangilal Vs. State of M.P.24.For considering the above, this Court has to consider Section 30-1A of the said Act which reads as under : [30-1A. Every person desirous of contesting election to theoffice of the Sarpanch reserved for the Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may be, Backward Class ofcitizens, shall be required to submit alongwith thenomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the CompetentAuthority and the Validity Certificate issued by the ScrutinyCommittee in accordance with the provisions of theMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, OtherBackward Classes and Special Backward Category12008 (1) Mh.L.J. 6192(2004) 2 SCC 447 2 of 7 3 59-wp 4723-2025.odt(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste CertificateAct, 2000]:2[Provided that, for the elections for the post of Sarpanch forwhich the last date of filing of nomination falls on or beforethe 31st December 2013, in accordance with the electionprogramme declared, a person who has applied to theScrutiny Committee for verification of his Caste Certificatebefore the date of filing of the nomination papers but whohas not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filingof the nomination papers shall submit, alongwith thenomination papers,—(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to theScrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate orany other proof of having made such application to theScrutiny Committee; and(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit within a period ofsix months from the date on which he is declared elected,the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee :Provided further that, if the person fails to produce theValidity Certificate within a period of six months from thedate on which he is declared elected, his election shall bedeemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shallbe disqualified for being a Sarpanch.]5.From the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, it is seenthat, even if there is no provision or positive words making itmandatory to follow principles of natural justice or to issue notice, itshall be taken as mandatory. There cannot be two opinions on thesame facts.6.The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that, Section 30-1A 3 of 7 4 59-wp 4723-2025.odtof the said Act is a mandatory provision which requires a person tosubmit caste validity certificate within one year. The Government hadeven extended the time to furnish caste validity certificate till09.07.2024. However, even within that period the petitioner failed tofurnish the certificate. He submits that, this Court has already decidedsuch matters by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Courtin the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. Vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors3.He thus prays for rejection of the petition. 7.In the case of Mangilal (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court hasobserved in paragraph No. 10 as under :“10.Even if a statute is silent and there are no positivewords in the Act or Rules made thereunder, there could benothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the partieswhose rights and interest are likely to be affected, by theorders that may be passed, and making it a requirement tofollow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless thestatute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justicemust be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute,unless there is clear mandate to the contrary. No form orprocedure should ever be permitted to exclude thepresentation of a litigant’s defence or stand. Even in theabsence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres inevery Tribunal/Court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character,to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements ofnatural justice and fair play to ensure better and properdischarge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded onprinciples of natural justice irrespective of the extent of itsapplication by express provision in that regard in a givensituation. It has always been a cherished principle. Wherethe statute is silent about the observance of the principles of32024 LiveLaw (SC) 99. 4 of 7 5 59-wp 4723-2025.odtnatural justice, such statutory silence is taken to implycompliance with the principles of natural justice wheresubstantial rights of parties are considerably affected. Theapplication of natural justice becomes presumptive, unlessfound excluded by express words of statute or necessaryintendment. (See Swadesi Cotton Mills etc. etc. v. Union ofIndia, AIR 1981 SC 818). Its aim is to secure justice or toprevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justicedo not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rulesoperate only in areas not covered by any law validly made.They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.The principles of natural justice have many facets. Two ofthem are: notice of the case to be met, and opportunity toexplain.”8.So far as judgment in the case of Gangubai Laxman Bansode(supra) is concerned, this Court has held that, in proceeding underSections 14 and 16, the learned Collector must hear the concernedmember before passing the order where disqualification is underSection 14 of the said Act which requires the parties to prove their casebased on a material. So far as disqualification on the ground of nonsubmission of caste validity certificate is concerned, clauses (I) & (II) ofthe proviso are material where a person is required to submit validitycertificate. At the time of filling the nomination form itself, if a persondoes not possess the validity certificate, he has to file an undertakingthat, he shall submit such certificate within 12 months from the date onwhich he is declared elected. Thus, it is clear that the person alreadyhas a knowledge of the requirement of submitting caste validitycertificate and he is also aware of the consequences of non submission 5 of 7
Legal Reasoning
6 59-wp 4723-2025.odtof the caste validity certificate. No doubt, the principles of naturaljustice are required to be followed. However, it would be only in suchcases where a person is required to give notice of proposed action orthe consequences. In the present case, disqualification is automatic.The only thing required to be seen is as to whether a person hassubmitted a caste validity certificate.9.In the present case, this Court finds that, it can never be said aperson is not aware of the action to be taken against him or that theconsequences that would follow because of inaction on the part of suchperson. This Court, thus, is of the opinion that, no notice is required.Therefore, in the present case, this Court finds substance in thesubmissions of Mr. Gore that no notice is required to be given to thepetitioner. This Court has already taken view in various judgmentsbased on the judgment in the case of Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. Vs. BapuRajaram Kalel & Ors. (Supra).10.Considering the mandatory nature of Section 30-1A of the saidAct this Court finds that, it was necessary for the petitioner to submitthe caste validity certificate within time. The Hon’ble Apex Court in thecase of Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. (supra) has also held that, norelaxation can be given to any person in view of Section 10-1A of thesaid Act. 6 of 7
Decision
7 59-wp 4723-2025.odt11.This Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the petition.The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 7 of 7