Judgment : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Writ Petition Nos.274/2010 and 269/2010 not on Board, taken on Board and are heard along with companion writ petitions listed today. 2. In each of these petitions, validity of Section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, is challenged being ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 243-T of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that the State officials be directed to accept the nomination filed by the respective petitioners as valid in absence of the validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and for further direction against the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide their caste claim expeditiously. 3. Insofar as challenge on the ground of Section 9-A being ultra vires Article 19(1)(c) is concerned, the same is devoid of merits. Article 19(1)(c) guarantees right to citizens to form associations or unions. We fail to understand as to how this Article can be pressed into service in respect of a provision regarding election as a member of Local Government/Municipal Council / Legislative Assembly / Parliament. 4. Insofar as challenge to the said provision being ultra vires Article 243-T of the Constitution, even that challenge does not commend to us inasmuch as Article 243-T postulates reservation of seats for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in every Municipality. The fact that seats have been reserved as required by the said provision for the ensuing elections to elect Councillors of the Municipal Council, Kaij, is not in dispute. The fact that the aspiring person is unable to contest from the specified reserved seat though entitled to do so does not mean that the mandate of Article 243-T has not been complied. 5. Insofar as challenge to Section 9-A founded on Article 14 is concerned, the same proceeds on the argument that there is no provision in the statute, which obliges the scrutiny committee to decide the claim regarding caste claim within specified time. More over, the effect of imposing condition of furnishing validity certificate to be accompanied along with the nomination papers is to require the prospective candidate to do something, which is impossible and not within his control at all. More over, the effect of imposing condition of furnishing validity certificate to be accompanied along with the nomination papers is to require the prospective candidate to do something, which is impossible and not within his control at all. That is not only because the validity certificate has to be issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but also because in the peculiar facts of the present case, there was hardly any time span available for completing the formality of obtaining validation certificate. Inasmuch as some of the petitioners were elected as members of Grampanchayat, which election was held on 29.4.2008. Ordinarily, the tenure of elected body to Grampanchayat would be 5 years. However, by virtue of order dated 31.8.2009 issued by the competent authority, the Municipal Council, Kaij, was constituted. That decision was challenged before the High Court and the status quo order passed by the High Court eventually came to end on 4.11.2009. Soon thereafter, the petitioners submitted their applications for validation of the caste claim through proper channel. The election programme to elect Councillors to the newly constituted Municipal Council was notified on 6.1.2010. As per the said programme, the last date of filing of nomination was till 27.1.2010. Even if the date of constitution of Municipal Council was to be reckoned i.e. 31.8.2009, the period of six months prescribed by the Government resolution dated 17.7.2009 was not available to the aspiring candidates, who wanted to contest elections to the reserved seats as belonging to backward class community. In any case, the candidates having submitted their applications through proper channel, the responsibility to decide their caste claim expeditiously and before the last date of nomination lay on the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, decided the caste claims only of selective candidates and returned the proposal of the petitioners herein essentially on the ground that the same was not submitted within specified time. This was disregarding the latest directive issued on 14.1.2010 by the State Government that the condition of submitting proposal six months in advance before the date of election stood relaxed in the peculiar situation concerning Municipal Council, Kaij. Reliance was placed on the decision of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 241, which directs that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the incumbent expeditiously. Reliance was placed on the decision of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 241, which directs that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the incumbent expeditiously. In matters where such decision can not be rendered in time, applying the analogy of Clause 10 relating to giving provisional admission to the candidate in an educational institution, in the same way, the petitioners can be permitted to contest the elections subject to obtaining validity certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee within specified time. It was contended that the Court may have to keep in mind the legislative history of Section 9-A of the Act when the same was introduced, it was in the same form as it presently appears. When the said provision was challenged, the petitioners were permitted by this Court to participate in the election process subject to producing certificate within a period of four months from the date of filing of nomination. That order was passed by the Division Bench of our High Court in Writ Petition No.6737/2006 on 17.10.2006 in a case of Chandrashekhar S. Gaddi & others V/s Secretary, Town and Planning Department & others, and other companion cases. Similar order was passed by Single Judge (Vacation Judge) of this Court at Aurangabad Bench on 27.10.2006 in Writ Petition No. 7194/2006 in the case of Haribhau Narayanrao Kamble & another V/s State of Maharashtra & others, and companion matters. It is submitted that similar arrangement can be provided in respect of the petitioners. The petitioners have essentially contended that if Section 9-A is to be construed as mandatory, the same was ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution being unreasonable and requiring the aspiring candidates to do something, which is impossible and not within their control. Besides, it is argued that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has resorted to discrimination inasmuch as out of 53 applications, the Caste Scrutiny Committee selectively granted validation certificate in respect of 21 candidates on one day and returned the proposals of other candidates on the ground that the same were not submitted in specified time disregarding the circular issued on 14.1.2010. It is lastly submitted that in any case the provision such as Section 9-A should be interpreted as directory in nature. It is lastly submitted that in any case the provision such as Section 9-A should be interpreted as directory in nature. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve V/s State of Maharashtra & others (2008 (2) Bombay Cases Reporter, 712) to buttress the argument that Section 9-A is directory in nature as the expression appearing in Section 9-A is identical to the expression in the proviso under the same section. In that, Section 9-A provides that the candidate “shall be required to submit” along with the nomination paper caste certificate issued by the competent authority and the validity certificate issued by the scrutiny committee. The proviso to Section 9-A however postulated that a person, who has applied to the scrutiny committee for the verification of caste certificate before the date of filing the nomination paper, but who has not received the validity certificate before the date of filing of the nomination paper, “shall submit along with the nomination paper certain documents". One of the requirements is to submit the validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of his election. The expression “shall submit” has been construed in the said decision to mean that it is directory in nature. On these broad submissions, it is contended that the petitioners be permitted to participate in the ensuing election without insisting for production of validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee along with their nomination papers. 6. Having given serious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar from both sides, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the challenge to Section 9 A even on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merits. In the first place, it is well established position that right to participate in election process is not a fundamental right. It is obviously a statutory right. It is nobody's case that the State has no legislative competence to enact provisions such as Section 9 A of the Act. The argument however, is that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the operation of the section is unreasonable and prejudicial for no fault of the prospective candidates. 7. It is obviously a statutory right. It is nobody's case that the State has no legislative competence to enact provisions such as Section 9 A of the Act. The argument however, is that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the operation of the section is unreasonable and prejudicial for no fault of the prospective candidates. 7. Section 9 A of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) And Industrial Townships Act, 1965 as it presently appears in the Statute reads thus: "9A. Person contesting election for reserved seats to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate-Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or, as the case may be, Backward Class of Citizens, shall be required to submit, along with the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000." 8. Going by the plain language of this Section, a nomination paper of a candidate contesting election to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or as the case may be, Other Backward Class of citizens can be said to be validly tendered only if it were to be accompanied with a caste certificate issued by the competent authority and the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. That is the statutory requirement which was enacted on account of the past experience that in most of the cases the caste claim issue remained inconclusive till the entire tenure as a Member expired. Section 9 A of the Act of 1965 has been introduced on 19th August, 2006. No doubt validity of the said provision was challenged and during the pendency of that challenge, Proviso to Section 9A was introduced, which however, has been deleted with effect from 2nd May, 2008. 9. The argument of the Petitioners is in effect, to follow the regime prescribed under the proviso which has already been deleted. The validity of the Amendment Act of 2008 whereby the proviso was deleted has not been challenged in these Petitions. What is, however, challenged is the main provision - Section 9 A of the Act of 1965 -as it exists as of now. The validity of the Amendment Act of 2008 whereby the proviso was deleted has not been challenged in these Petitions. What is, however, challenged is the main provision - Section 9 A of the Act of 1965 -as it exists as of now. The provision of Section 9 A as it exists, will have to be construed on its own. Indubitably, it is well established canons of construction that the statutory provisions of election law are to be strictly construed and its requirement strictly observed. (See Banwari Dass v. Sumer Chand (1974) 4 S.C.C. 817 ). As aforesaid, going by the plain language of Section 9 A, it is mandatory to submit caste certificate issued by the competent authority and the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee along with the nomination paper. Only then the nomination paper can be said to be validly presented. The fact that the Petitioners were unable to obtain validity certificate before the date of filing of nomination paper, cannot be the basis to hold that Section 9 A is unreasonable. The purport of Section 9 A is that a person aspiring to contest election to a seat reserved for S.C., S.T. or O.B.C. category, as the case may be, should prepare himself well in advance to present the caste certificate and validity certificate along with his nomination paper. The fact that the Municipal Council has been constituted only on 31st August,2009 and there was not enough time to process the application of the Petitioner or that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has wrongly returned the proposal, in our view, cannot be the basis to hold that Section 9 A is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. Indeed, Section 9 A does not specify the procedure as to how the caste certificate or the validation certificate should be obtained. That procedure is provided in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2000"). Section 6 of the said Act provides verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Sub-section (2) mandates that the application for obtaining the caste certificate from the competent authority shall be made "well in time" and in "such manner as may be prescribed". Section 6 of the said Act provides verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Sub-section (2) mandates that the application for obtaining the caste certificate from the competent authority shall be made "well in time" and in "such manner as may be prescribed". Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act of 2000 obligates the Scrutiny Committee to follow the procedure for verification of the caste certificate and grant of verification "as prescribed". Indeed, neither the Act of 2000 nor the Rules framed thereunder provide for schedule or time table for institution and processing the application. That however can be discerned from the Government Resolutions issued from time to time and lastly, on 17th July, 2009. Notably, the validity of this Resolution is not challenged at all. Although the Resolution of 17th July, 2009 supersedes all previous Resolutions on the subject but it essentially restates the position provided in the earlier Government Resolutions. Clause 2 thereof clearly requires the incumbent to submit application at least six months in advance before the issuance of notification of election programme. Clause 3 provides that the Collector shall forward the said application/ proposal within seven days to the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee. Clause 4 obligates the Caste Scrutiny Committee to intimate the applicant about the outcome of the said application within three months from its receipt. The schedule envisaged under the Government Resolution is obviously in furtherance of the requirements stipulated by the Statute such as Section 9 A of the Act of 1965. 11. The argument of the Petitioners that they were unable to apply six months in advance before the issuance of notification of election programme deserves to be stated to be rejected. The fact that the Municipal Council has been constituted only on 31st August, 2009 would make no difference to the requirement of the Section 9 A of the Act of 1965. Merely because Section 9 A mandates submission of validity certificate along with the nomination paper, that by no standards be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. That requirement is to ensure free and fair election and to provide opportunity to participate in election "only to those" who are eligible to contest the election as per the requirement of the said provision on the date of presentation of nomination papers. That requirement is to ensure free and fair election and to provide opportunity to participate in election "only to those" who are eligible to contest the election as per the requirement of the said provision on the date of presentation of nomination papers. If the Petitioners were interested in participating in such election, they ought to have obtained validity certificate well in advance as the same was required to be accompanied along with nomination paper. 12. Much emphasize was placed on the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Chandrashekhar S. Gaddi & others V/s Secretary, Town and Planning Department & others (supra). On perusal of the said order dated 17th October, 2006, it is noticed that the arrangement provided therein was on the basis of the concession given by the Respondents before the Court to abide by the stated arrangement. We are conscious of the fact that the said order was passed in Writ Petitions which challenged the validity of Section 9 A as originally introduced sans the proviso thereto. It is however, not open to the Court to issue directions to the authority who has been made responsible to conduct free and fair election in accordance with the Rule of Law, so as direct it to accept the nomination paper of the Petitioners contrary to the requirement of the Section 9 A of the Act of 1965. As a matter of fact, if the election officer were to accept the nomination paper without the caste certificate and validity certificate at the stage of scrutiny, it will be open to the other contesting candidates to ask for rejection of such nomination paper. In the present case, we are informed that the last date of the nomination has expired on 27th January, 2010 and the scrutiny of the nomination papers would be done on 28th January, 2010. If it is so, the other contesting candidates would be affected by the order which the Petitioners are inviting behind their back. Even for that reason, the relief claimed by the Petitioners cannot be entertained. It is well established position that the Court cannot interdict the election process once the same has commenced. 13. If it is so, the other contesting candidates would be affected by the order which the Petitioners are inviting behind their back. Even for that reason, the relief claimed by the Petitioners cannot be entertained. It is well established position that the Court cannot interdict the election process once the same has commenced. 13. Insofar as the observations of the Single Judge (Vacation Judge) of our High Court in the case of Haribhau Narayanrao Kamble & another V/s State of Maharashtra & others (supra), with due respect, the direction issued is in the nature of re-enacting Section 9 A of the Act of 1965 and/or to restore the position as obtained during the existence of proviso to Section 9 A of the Act of 1965, which have since been deleted with effect from 2nd May, 2008. 14. Even reliance placed on the dictum of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others (supra), in particular clause 10 of Paragraph 13 will be of no avail having regard to the statutory provision in place requiring production of caste certificate and validity certificate along with the nomination paper itself. In that case, there was no such statutory restriction. 15. To get over this position, it was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the Scrutiny Committee has indulged in discrimination in that, out of 53 applications, 32 applications including the applications of the Petitioners have been returned back on the ground that the same were not submitted in time. On the other hand, applications submitted by 21 other prospective candidates during the same time as that of the Petitioners, were not only entertained but validity certificates were issued to them on one day. The argument has been countered by the learned Government Pleader by pointing out that in fact in all 116 applications were received, out of that, initially 21 and subsequently, 15 validity certificates have been issued. In other words, validity certificates in favour of 36 prospective candidates have been issued after due verification. On the basis of such validity certificates, 20 nominations have already been filed against the seat reserved for scheduled caste and 23 nomination against seat reserved for the other backward classes. Insofar as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.500 of 2010 are concerned, their applications have been returned on the ground that they had not complied with procedural requirement. On the basis of such validity certificates, 20 nominations have already been filed against the seat reserved for scheduled caste and 23 nomination against seat reserved for the other backward classes. Insofar as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.500 of 2010 are concerned, their applications have been returned on the ground that they had not complied with procedural requirement. In other words, their applications were not in the prescribed format and submitted in the manner required by Law. Insofar as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.324 of 2010 are concerned, their cases were referred to Vigilance Cell for enquiry as has been done in some other cases. 16. Assuming that the Scrutiny Committee has committed some irregularity including of deciding the applications of only selected few, that, however, cannot be the basis to challenge the validity of Section 9 A of the Act of 1965. So long as Section 9 A remains on the Statute Book, only such nomination papers which are accompanied by caste certificate and validity certificate can be presented as valid nomination of the candidate intending to contest election for reserved seat. 17. It was lastly submitted that in any case the provision such as Section 9 A will have to be construed as directory. We do not find force in this submission, having regard to the language of the said Section as it appears in the Statute. The decision in the case of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve V/s State of Maharashtra & others (supra), in our opinion, has no bearing on the controversy on hand. The observation is in respect of expression appearing in the proviso, which obviously was an enabling provision. We cannot over-look the fact that the said proviso has now been deleted. We cannot give the same meaning to the purport of Section 9 A and thereby restore the regime which operated during the existence of Proviso, which is no more on the Statute Book. 18. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, there is no substance in the challenge to validity of section 9 A of the Act of 1965 on the grounds pressed into service. 19. 18. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, there is no substance in the challenge to validity of section 9 A of the Act of 1965 on the grounds pressed into service. 19. Indeed, the Petitioners may be justified in relying on the Government Circular dated 14th January, 2010 which obliged the Scrutiny Committee to decide the applications before 27th January, 2010 and to entertain the applications even though the same were not filed six months prior to the date of notifying the election programme. However, as aforesaid, it is not possible for us to take the view that Section 9 A is unconstitutional. So long as the said Section is on the Statute Book, it mandates presentation of Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate along with the nomination Paper. That condition cannot be diluted or ignored merely because of the fortuitous circumstances in which the Petitioners have been placed. 20. Accordingly, all these Petitions fail, and the same are dismissed.