Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 254 (BOM)

Sangeeta Sanjay Lakhote v. State of Maharashtra

2011-03-03

A.P.BHANGALE, D.D.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT : D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is in respect of action of disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Butibori, on the ground that the petitioner did not annex caste validity certificate along with the nomination form submitted by the petitioner for contesting the said post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that second proviso to section 101A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (in short “the said Act”) contemplates that the validity certificate can be submitted within a period of three months from the date of election of the candidate. It is contended that even if the petitioner failed to submit validity certificate along with the nomination form, second proviso protects the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents could not have disqualified the petitioner under section 101A of the said Act. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the action of disqualification taken against the petitioner by the respondents is in conformity with the provisions of section 10 1A of the said Act and, therefore, it is sustainable in law. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and perused the provisions of Section 10 1A of the said Act. Section 10 1A requires every person desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for 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 validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 10 1A contemplates that a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his/her caste certificate before the date of filing of the nomination paper but who has not received the validity on the date of filing of the nomination paper, shall submit along with nomination paper true copy of the application etc. 6. Second proviso further contemplates that if a person failed to submit validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of his election, shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Member. 7. 6. Second proviso further contemplates that if a person failed to submit validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of his election, shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Member. 7. Having considered the scheme of Section 101A of the said Act, it is evident that every person desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for backward class category, is required to submit along with the nomination paper, caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority as well as validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. 8. As per the first proviso if a person has already applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification before submitting nomination but has not received the validity certificate on the date of nomination is required to submit along with the nomination paper (1) true copy of the application preferred by him to Scrutiny Committee for the validity certificate; (2) an undertaking that he shall submit within a period of three months from the date of his election the validity certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 9. Second proviso requires him to submit validity certificate within three months from the date of election. 10, In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute that petitioner was desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste (woman), however only submitted caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with her nomination paper but did not submit the validity certificate at the time of filing of her nomination paper. Similarly, since the petitioner has not applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim before the date of filing of nomination, the first proviso to section 101A is not attracted. For similar reason, the second proviso to section 101A will not be attracted since the petitioner has not applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his/her caste certificate before the date of filing of nomination. Hence, in the instant case, therefore, neither the first proviso nor the second proviso of section 101A is attracted and, therefore, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived and devoid of substance. Hence, in the instant case, therefore, neither the first proviso nor the second proviso of section 101A is attracted and, therefore, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived and devoid of substance. The case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Section 101A and since the petitioner did not annex the validity certificate along with her nomination paper, the respondents were justified in disqualifying the petitioner. The action is just and proper and sustainable in law. 11. No case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.