A.H. JOSHI, J.:- Rule in both applications. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. Parties are referred to with reference to their status as in Writ Petition. 3. It is necessary to have a glance at the facts, which are as follows:- 4. Petitioner had contested an election to seat of a Councilor from the Ward reserved for Other Backward Classes, claiming to belong to 'Julaha', OBC caste. He was elected. Petitioner's caste claim was invalidated, which order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, for a fresh decision. During first round, petitioner's status as a Councilor was protected. By order dated 11-12-2007, petitioner's caste claim was again invalidated, and the seat of Councilor for which petitioner was elected was notified for a fresh election. In the Writ Petition No.190 of 2008 challenging invalidation done by order dated 11-12-2007, this Court passed interim order on 20-6-2008 as follows:- "The elections are permitted to be held as scheduled in respect of the wards in question, however, the results of said elections should not be declared unless prior permission is obtained from this Court. Place the matter for final disposal at the admission stage on 21-8-2008." Writ Petition No.190 of 2008 has been allowed with following order:- "23. Rule is made absolute and the decision of the Scrutiny Committee dated 11-12-2007 [Annexure-XXVI] is set aside and the case is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph." After remand, petitioner's caste claim has been validated. 5. It seems that the respondent nos.2 and 4 to 6 have not restored to the petitioner his status as a Councilor. He is, therefore, before this Court. 6. Civil Application No.550 of 2009 is filed by the original writ petitioner, for clarification and modification of Judgment and Order dated 17th October, 2008. 7. The original petitioner in Writ Petition No.190 of 2008 wants a clarification that the Judgment and Order passed by this Court on 17th October, 2008 should contain a direction that:- (i) .................in the event of declaration of caste claim by Caste Scrutiny Committee, the caste certificate of petitioner is valid and validity certificate is granted in favour of petitioner, respondents are further directed to treat petitioner as legally elected and continue him as Member of Municipal Council, Balapur; . 8. 8. In contrast with what original writ petitioner wants, respondent nos. 1 to 6 want that since during pendency of Writ Petition, election to the seat of the Councilor, which had fallen vacant, was permitted under the orders of the Court, the same should be acted upon. Thus, the aim and purpose of both the applications is diagonally opposite. 9. Question revolves around effect of Section 9-A of the (Maharashtra Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships) Act, 1965, [here in after referred as "MM Act, 1965"] as introduced by Maharashtra Amending Act No.35 of 2006 on 19th August, 2006. The consequential issue that arises is whether upon failure of a Councilor to get his validation of caste claim from the Caste Scrutiny Committee within the period prescribed in Section 9-A of the MM Act, 1965, the seat of a councilor from the ward concerned shall fall vacant, and shall remain vacant notwithstanding validation of a caste claim on a later date. Consequent question that arises is 'Should the right of a person so elected extinguish despite validation of the claim after expiry of said statutory period?' 10. The question cannot be said to be any more open for a debate and adjudication. 11. Division Bench of this Court in case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [ 2008(2) Bom.C.R. 712 ] has ruled that the effect of time limit prescribed in various provisions alike Section 9-A of the MM Act. 1965. is directory. It shall suffice to refer to relevant finding of this Court in the said Judgment. This Court held as follows:- “21...............We, therefore, hold that the period of 4 months prescribed for production of caste validity certificate by proviso to section 5-B of the MMC Act and the BPMC Act, section 9-A of the Municipalities Act, Section 12-A of the Zilla Parishads Act and Section IO-A of the Village Panchayats Act is merely directory. 12. True it is that this Court has recorded a caveat in lines to follow in the same paragraph, which caveat does, in any manner, nullify what this Court held. 13. In view that the issue duly addressed and rules, the consequences, which have to naturally accrue, must follow. In large number of cases, this Court had granted protection against filling of the vacancy so caused. 13. In view that the issue duly addressed and rules, the consequences, which have to naturally accrue, must follow. In large number of cases, this Court had granted protection against filling of the vacancy so caused. In some cases, though protection was not granted, and elections were permitted, the doctrine of lis-pendens has to apply. The fact of election itself was due to failure to get a declaration from Scrutiny Committee. Barring the cases of rank negligence, delay or failure to secure the decision is necessarily not due to negligence of the candidate alone, he cannot be punished for what was beyond his control. The fact that no interim relief was granted, protecting any Councilor would not perish, extinguish or destroy his status as a Councilor, though his caste/tribe claim was later validated. His status, which had come under clog, would revive. 14. We are, thus, satisfied that the interest of justice needs to be protected, and it shall stand protected if we add one subparagraph in paragraph 23 of the Judgment dated 17-10-2008 rendered in Writ Petition No.190 of 2008, as follows:- "In the event petitioner succeeds and his caste claim is validated, he shall be entitled to restoration of his status as a Councilor." 15. In the result, we allow the application by adding the sub-paragraph described by us in foregoing para. Consequently, we dismiss Civil Application 9539 of 2008. 16. In the circumstances, parties shall bear own costs. Application allowed.