Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 62 (BOM)

Sachin Chintaman Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra

2021-01-12

M.S.KARNIK

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner raised an objection to the nomination of the respondent No.6 who was desirous of contesting Gram Panchayat election for the year 2020-2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not record any reason but straightway proceeds to reject the application made by the petitioner. Learned counsel further pointed out that for the earlier term the respondent No.6 contested the election from the reserved category of Other Backward Class - Kunbi and was elected. However, his caste certificate came to be invalidated and the order of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was confirmed right upto this Court. In these circumstances, he was disqualified for the remainder of the term and with a retrospective effect. Learned counsel would therefore relying on the provisions of Section 14(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act ('the said Act' for short) submitted that as the respondent No.6 was removed for a misbehaviour, there is a bar for his contesting any election for a period of five years from the date of his removal. In his submission, all these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Returning Officer and without recording any reasons the application has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on the other hand submitted that the issue of disqualification of the respondent No.6 earlier has no relevance to the present period. He would further submit that Section 14 (c) (i) of the said Act has no application as the petitioner was not removed for misbehaviour but on account of incurring disqualification for failure to get the caste certificate validated. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 6. The respondent No.6 in the previous term was disqualified because he could not get his caste certificate validated as belonging to Other Backward Class. The respondent No.6 had earlier contested the election from Other Backward Class category and upon invalidation of the caste certificate, he was disqualified with retrospective effect. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing of election Petition. The respondent No.6 had earlier contested the election from Other Backward Class category and upon invalidation of the caste certificate, he was disqualified with retrospective effect. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing of election Petition. Moreover, prima facie it appears that the provisions of Section 14 (c) (i) of the said Act will not apply as the respondent No.6 was not removed for misconduct or misbehaviour but was disqualified on account of failure on his part to get the caste certificate validated as belonging to the Other Backward Class. In any case, the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing an election Petition once the elections are over and therefore this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer. 7. Keeping the remedy of the petitioner open to file election Petition if occasion so arises the present Petition is rejected. All contentions on merits are kept open. 8. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.9. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.