Judgment : D. Sinha, J. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 10.1.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation whereby retrospectively terminating the election of the petitioner as a Corporator. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner obtained a caste certificate on 15.5.2010 from the competent authority whereby it is certified that the petitioner belongs to “Pancham” caste, which is recognized as “other backward class”. The competent Caste Scrutiny Committee verified the caste claim of the petitioner and issued Validity Certificate on 19.5.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner contested the election of respondent no. 2 – Kolhapur Municipal Corporation which was held on 30.10.2010 from Ward No. 12 which was reserved for “other backward class”. The petitioner was elected in the said election by majority of votes. One Smita Maruti Mani – respondent no. 4 herein who had contested the election from Ward No. 12 against the petitioner was defeated in the said election by the petitioner. She filed a writ petition in this Court bearing No. 1855 of 2011, challenging the Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.4 has never challenged the election of the petitioner by filing an election petition as contemplated under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (“BPMC Act”) nor there was any prayer to that effect made in the said writ petition. This Court vide Order dated 1.7.2011 set aside the Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner on the ground that neither the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell nor the statutory procedure applicable in this regard was undertaken by the Committee. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law without recording the finding by this Court that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner was a false document. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law without recording the finding by this Court that the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner was a false document. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner received a communication dated 10.1.2012 signed by the Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation whereby the petitioner is informed that the election of the petitioner to Kolhapur Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 12 is retrospectively terminated. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 10.1.2012 issued by the Commissioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Commissioner has seriously erred in terminating the election of the petitioner without issuing any notice or giving any hearing to the petitioner and therefore the impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 being violative of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside on this sole ground alone. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even otherwise the impugned communication issued by the Commissioner, retrospectively terminating the election of the petitioner as Councillor is ex facie illegal and cannot be sustained in law. It is further contended that the petitioner while filing his nomination paper for the election in question had submitted his Caste Certificate and also the Caste Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and thus has fully complied with the provisions of Section 5B of the BPMC Act. Thus setting aside the Validity Certificate by the High Court on the technical ground and remanding matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration does not either amount to cancellation of Caste Certificate issued by the Authority nor can be termed as false document and therefore the impugned communication in view of provisions of Section 10(4) 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 (“Caste Certificate Act 2000”) cannot be sustained in law. 8. It is contended that in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of SujitVasant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 8. It is contended that in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of SujitVasant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 1109 ] particularly observations made in paragraph 7 of the judgment shows that there are two types of procedures available for removal of an elected candidate. Firstly by filing an election petition and secondly removal by the Competent Authority, on finding that the elected person is disqualified. It is contented that under the provisions of BPMC Act and the Caste Act there is no provision to enable an unsuccessful candidate to approach the Commissioner by filing application for removal of the Councillor. Thus the application made by the respondent no. 4 who has not even filed the election petition, itself is not tenable in law and hence the order passed by the Commissioner on the said application is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has contended that every person desirous of contesting election from the reserved seat is required to submit along with the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Once the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner is quashed and set aside by this Court vide Order dated 1.7.2011 by allowing the writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 the petitioner cannot continue as a Councillor in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Sujit Patil (cited supra). 10. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge seeking declaration that the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the Caste Act is just, proper and legal document. There is, however, no interim order passed in the said suit. It is contended that the Civil Suit is not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has contended that the impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 is sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of RameshSuresh Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has contended that the impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 is sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of RameshSuresh Kamble vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2006(6) Bom.C.R. 820 ] as well as the law laid down by the another Full Bench of this Court in case of SujitVasant Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [ 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 1109 ]. It is therefore contended that since the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to be quashed and set aside by this Court, the petitioner has incurred disqualification and therefore the decision taken by the Commissioner, impugned in the present petition is sustainable in law. 12. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Perused the impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 as well as Order of this Court dated 1.7.2011 whereby the writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 came to be disposed of and the decision of the Full Bench in Surjit Patil’s case. In the present petition undisputed facts are as follows: I. The petitioner obtained Caste Certificate on 15.5.2010 from the Competent Authority whereby it is certified that the petitioner belongs to “Pancham” caste, which is recognized as “other backward class”; II. Caste Scrutiny Committee granted Validity Certificate on 19.5.2010; III. The General Elections of the respondent no.2 – Corporation were held on 30.10.2010 and the petitioner contested the election on the seat reserved for “other backward class” from Ward No. 12. Along with the nomination paper, the petitioner submitted Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority as well as Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner was declared successful in the election and defeated another candidate – Smt. Smita Maruti Mane, the respondent no. 4 herein, who contested the election from Ward No. 12; IV. Respondent No.4 – Smt. Smita Maruti Mane filed a writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 challenging the Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur, validating the caste Certificate of the petitioner; V. This Court set aside the Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. VI. The Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, in view of the Order dated 1.7.2011 passed by this Court in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 challenging the Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur, validating the caste Certificate of the petitioner; V. This Court set aside the Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. VI. The Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, in view of the Order dated 1.7.2011 passed by this Court in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011, as well as provisions of Section 10(4) and 15 of the Caste Act issued the impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 whereby the election of the petitioner from Ward No.12 is retrospectively terminated. Hence, the present writ petition. 13. The person contesting election for reserved seat is required to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate along with the nomination paper as per requirement of Section 5B of the BPMC Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has submitted along with his nomination paper the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Caste Act and therefore the petitioner has complied with the requirement of Section 5B of the BPMC Act. 14. respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 questioning the validity of Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued to the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur, petition was allowed and the Validity Certificate was quashed and set aside by this Court and relevant observations in this regard made by the High Court are in paragraph 7 of the Order dated 1.7.2011, which reads thus : “We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. So far as the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the correctness of the validity certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it is not disputed by any of the parties to this petition, including the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, that the Committee failed to adhere to the statutory procedure applicable in this regard. In the instant case, neither the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell nor the statutory procedure applicable in this regard was undertaken by the Committee. Govt. Pleader, that the Committee failed to adhere to the statutory procedure applicable in this regard. In the instant case, neither the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell nor the statutory procedure applicable in this regard was undertaken by the Committee. The validity certificate appears to have been issued without giving any reasons by the Committee and, therefore the impugned validity certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Committee, in our view, cannot be sustained in law and is hereby quashed and set aside.” Perusal of the above referred observations will show that since the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to follow the mandatory procedure of referring the Caste Certificate / Caste claim of the petitioner to the Police Vigilance Cell for home enquiry therefore the Validity Certificate granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 15. This Court has neither cancelled the Caste Certificate nor held that the petitioner procured the false Caste Certificate. The observations made in paragraph 8 of the decision of this Court, reads thus : “Insofar as the genuineness of the caste certificate alleged to have been issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the respondent no. 4 is concerned, the issue is pending in the civil suit which is filed by the respondent no.4 for a declaration. If the suit is decreed and if the declaration is given by the Civil Court that the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority is a genuine document and there is no appeal or revision preferred by the aggrieved party and the decree given by the Civil Court attains finality, in that event, we direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to re-consider the caste claim of the respondent no.4 based on the said certificate which is held to be genuine by the Civil Court and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. The matter is remitted to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard.” The perusal of the above referred observations would show that so far as the genuineness of the Caste Certificate alleged to have been issued by the Competent Authority is concerned, the issue is pending in the Civil Court in the civil suit filed by the petitioner for declaration. Since this Court after quashing the Validity Certificate dated 19.5.2010 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee remitted the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law only if the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed and if the declaration is given by the Civil Court that the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority is a genuine document and that decree reached finality. It is therefore evident that this Court did not give finding whether Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner was genuine document or otherwise. 16. It is in this background, it will be appropriate to consider the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. Sub section (4) contemplates that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of a statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, Cooperative Society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such caste on such false Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. Under sub section (4) of Section 10 a person shall be disqualified to hold the elective office provided it is proved that he has procured a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such caste and such false certificate has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee and not otherwise. In the instant case the Caste Certificate of the petitioner is neither cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor by the High Court vide Order dated 1.7.2011 rendered in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 and therefore the election of the petitioner cannot be terminated retrospectively by invoking deeming fiction provided in sub section (4) of section 10 of the Caste Act. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 justifying the action of termination of election of the petitioner retrospectively taken by the Corporation relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Sujit Patil (cited supra) particularly the observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 12B of the decision, the relevant portion thereof reads thus: “12B. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 justifying the action of termination of election of the petitioner retrospectively taken by the Corporation relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Sujit Patil (cited supra) particularly the observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 12B of the decision, the relevant portion thereof reads thus: “12B. Thus the scheme is that a person who obtains a caste certificate has to himself apply to the Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny of his caste certificate, so that he can secure a valid certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, and it is only after the Scrutiny Committee issuing a valid certificate that the caste certificate issued in favour of the person by the competent authority becomes final. In our opinion, the scheme of subsection (2) of section 6 is that any candidate who desires to avail of any benefit available to backward class has to get a caste certificate as also the validity certificate before he makes a claim for the benefits. But if a candidate chooses to make claim to the benefits on the basis of a tentative certificate namely a certificate issued by the competent authority, he takes the risk of his losing the benefits that he has claimed and obtained and also being visited with penal consequences on the refusal of the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste claim. The Act contemplates conscious decision being made by a person at the time of claiming benefits. The Legislature expects a person to claim the benefits only after obtaining the validity certificate, but the Legislature also permits a person to claim the benefits on the basis of a tentative certificate issued by the competent authority, if he is willing to take the risk mentioned above. In our opinion, therefore, the validity certificate is one of the essential ingredient of the candidate being qualified to contest for the reserved seat.” It is therefore evident that under the scheme of sub section (2 ) of section 6, any candidate who desires of availing of any benefits available to backward class has to obtain the Caste Certificate as well as the Validity Certificate before he makes a claim for being qualified to contest elections on the reserved seat. In the instant case the petitioner along with his nomination paper submitted both these documents i.e. Caste Certificate as well as Validity Certificate and therefore fulfilled the criteria laid down by the law declared by the Full Bench and therefore was qualified to contest the election on the reserved seat. The Validity Certificate was set aside by the High Court on the ground of breach of mandatory procedure by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after the petitioner was declared elected from Ward No. 12 and set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision which has not yet been taken by the Committee. It is in these circumstances, the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil is of no avail to the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the law laid down by the another Full Bench in the case of Ramesh Suresh Kamble also does not further the case of the respondent no. 4. 18. It is no doubt true that this Court in paragraph 8 of the decision dated 1.7.2011 rendered in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 made observations in respect of the Civil Suit filed by the present petitioner (respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition) and issued directions to the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the caste claim of the respondent no. 4 based on the Caste certificate dated 19.5.2010 if it is held to be genuine by the Civil Court and take a decision afresh in accordance with law. However, the perusal of the decision dated 1.7.2011 shows that the observations made and directions given to the Caste Scrutiny Committee mentioned in paragraph 8 of the said decision are without considering the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 8, 9 and 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. In the instant case the respondent no.2 in paragraph V of its written submissions has specifically stated that maintainability of the civil suit filed by the petitioner is doubtful, considering the provisions of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the relevant provisions of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 which have bearing on the jurisdiction of the Civil Suit to entertain the civil suit. 19. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the relevant provisions of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 which have bearing on the jurisdiction of the Civil Suit to entertain the civil suit. 19. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000, any person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. is required to apply in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the Competent Authority for the issue of a Caste Certificate. Provisions of Section 4(1) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 show that Competent Authority after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim and by following the procedure as prescribed, issue a caste certificate or reject the application for grant of caste certificate for reasons to be recorded in writing. Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 renders caste certificate invalid if it is issued by the Authority other than the Competent Authority and the caste certificate though issued by the Competent Authority shall be subject to verification and grant of Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. 20. Perusal of Section 8 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 clearly demonstrates that the burden of proving that the person belonged to such caste, tribe or class shall be on such claimant applicant. Since the burden of proof to establish that the person belonged to such caste or tribe is on the claimant applicant the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vested with all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 . It is therefore necessary to consider the purport of Section 9 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. 21. It is therefore necessary to consider the purport of Section 9 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. 21. The scheme of Section 9 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 contemplates that the Competent Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Scrutiny Committee shall, while holding an enquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely :- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; and (e) issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. It is therefore evident that the Authorities mentioned in Section 9 including Scrutiny Committee shall have all the powers of the Civil Court while holding an enquiry under this Act. 22. On the backdrop of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of Caste Certificate Act 2000 it will be useful to consider the provisions of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 which creates a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and contemplates that no Civil Court shall have a jurisdiction to entertain, to continue or to decide any suit or proceedings or shall pass any decree or order or execute wholly or partially any order, if the claim involved in suit or proceeding, or if the passing of such decree or order or if such execution would in any way be contrary to the provisions of this Act. Provisions of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 make it explicitly clear that the Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding or shall pass any decree or order or execute the same if it would in any way be contrary to the provisions of this Act. The joint reading of Sections 8, 9 and 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 would demonstrate that the burden of proof to establish that the person belonged to the caste mentioned in the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority is on the claimant who claims to belong to such caste as per the Section 8 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. Since the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vested with all the powers of the Civil Court, it is open for the claimant to adduce such evidence in this regard in order to discharge his burden as required by the provisions of Section 8 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 and establish that he belongs to such caste. Similarly since the Competent Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Scrutiny Committee all are vested with all the powers of the Civil Court, the Legislature has barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit or a proceeding or pass any decree or order if execution thereof would in any way will be contrary to the provisions of this Act as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. The clear legal position which emerges from the purport of Sections 8, 9 and 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 is that the candidate who has obtained caste certificate from the Competent Authority, is required to prove and establish that he belongs to such caste or tribe as mentioned in the Caste Certificate, and therefore it is open for him to adduce such evidence to establish his caste claim before the Caste Scrutiny Committee during the verification proceedings conducted under Section 6 (2) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000, since the Scrutiny Committee has all the powers of the Civil Court and therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to entertain the suit as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. Since the observations made and direction issued by this Court in paragraph 8 of the Order dated 1.7.2011 in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011 were without considering the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 8, 9 and 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 those are the directions simplicitor issued by this WPENT Court without deciding the aspect of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit which is barred by Section 15 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. Since this Court has considered the issue about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, in the present case, raised by the respondent no. Since this Court has considered the issue about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, in the present case, raised by the respondent no. 2, in the light of the above referred relevant provisions of the Caste Certificate Act 2000, it is open for the respondents to take such appropriate steps in view thereof before the Civil Court as well as in respect of judgment / order of this Court dated 1.7.2011 passed in writ petition no. 1855 of 2011. 23. So far as the impugned order passed in view of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 is concerned, we would like to reiterate that Section 10 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 needs to be considered in the light of provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act which contemplates that a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. has obtained a false certificate to that effect either for himself or his children, the Scrutiny Committee, suo motu or otherwise is entitled to call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently it shall by an order cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as prescribed. Sub section (4) of Section 10 mandates that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, Cooperative Society or any statutory body on the reserved seat for any Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe etc. by procuring a false caste certificate as belonging to such caste, on cancellation of such false certificate by the Scrutiny committee, the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. It is therefore clear that before invoking power / jurisdiction under sub section (4) of Section 10 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 there are two conditions required to be satisfied, namely, (i) the person who has contested election for local authority has procured false caste certificate; (ii) such false certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by exercising power and by following procedure under section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000. In the instant case as already observed herein above, no action as contemplated under section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 has been taken either by the Caste Scrutiny Committee or by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 1.7.2011 and therefore the impugned order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner being inconsistent with the provisions of sub section (4) of section 10 of the Caste Certificate Act 2000 cannot be sustained in law. 24. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the impugned order dated 10.1.2012 issued by the respondent no. 2 – Commissioner is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.