Chandrakala v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard learned counsel. The petitioner filed nomination form from females' ward no.3 of the Village Panchayat. The petitioner claims to be member of O.B.C. (N.T.) i.e. Gosavi. Her nomination form is rejected vide the impugned order dated 26.7.2010 rendered by the Returning Officer. The reason shown by the Returning Officer in the impugned order is that the (2) WP. 6973.2010 petitioner did not submit receipt regarding forwarding of her claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate.

The petitioner did file her caste certificate and other documents. She submitted copy of application addressed to the Tahsildar, wherein she stated that the application was forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

According to the petitioner, there is substantial compliance of the instructions contained in Government resolution dated 9.6.2010. It appears that Ordinance has been issued by the Government for the temporary period. Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is amended by adding proviso as stated below:- “Provided that, for the General or by- elections for which the last date of filing of nomination falls on or before the 31st December, 2010, in accordance with the election programme declared by the State Election Commission, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for (3) WP. 6973.2010 verification of his caste certificate before the date of filing of the nomination paper but who has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination paper shall submit, alongwith the nomination paper- (i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and (ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of four months from the date of his election, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee: Provided further that, if the person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period of four months from the date of his election, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a member. "

Perusal of the proviso purports to show that the candidate is required to comply with two requirements: (i) submission of true copy of the application preferred by him/her to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate (4) WP. 6973.2010 or any proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and (ii) an undertaking that he shall submit within a period of four months from the date of election, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee.

The petitioner did not furnish copy of the application submitted to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of Validity Certificate. She only submitted copy of the application submitted to the Tahsildar on 18.3.2006. It is the requirement of the proviso that any other proof, atleast, was required to be furnished regarding submission of such application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner. The petitioner did not furnish such proof in order to show that the application was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Collector and in his turn the Collector forwarded it to the Scrutiny Committee.

It is well settled that the purpose of the proviso is to give concession or provide for (5) WP. 6973.2010 exception from the main provision. Under section 10-1(A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, strict compliance of the law is that the caste validity certificate is necessary for filing of valid nomination form. Still, however, the proviso is added under the Ordinance and that too is restricted to the elections which were to be held prior to 31st December, 2010. In other words, after

31.12.2010 such concession would be deemed as withdrawn unless the amendment is carried out in effect by the Legislature. Needless to say, in order to gain benefit of such concession strict compliance ought to have been made by the petitioner. The rejection of the nomination form is, therefore, not required to be interferred with at the fag end when the election is scheduled on

8.8.2010.

The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all the questions in the regular Election Petition, if so filed after the elections are over. In view of “Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade Versus Returning (6) WP. 6973.2010 Officer, Akot and anr. 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 359“, the Petition is not maintainable. Petition disposed of.

Parties may act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar or the Personal Assistant. [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] Sd/-