Allowed

Sojar Kisan Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2016WP/12239/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging disqualification orders of village panchayat members due to delayed submission of Validation Certificates. The court held the time limit directory and quashed the disqualification orders.

What did the court decide?

The orders impugned holding petitioners disqualified and cancelling membership were quashed; Scrutiny Committee directed to decide verification proposals within four months.

Sojar Kisan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp12235.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12235 OF 2016
WRIT PETITION NO. 12236 OF 2016
WRIT PETITION NO. 12239 OF 2016
* * * * *

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12235 OF 2016

¶6

Sudam s/o. Shahaji Raut..Petitioner
Age. Major, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Village Apati, Tq. Jamkhed,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶7

Versus

¶8

`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `..` `Respondents` `Through its Principal Secretary,` `Rural Development Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.`
`2.`	`The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,` `Nashik Division Committee No.1, Nashik.`
`3.`	`The Additional Divisional Commissioner,` `Nashik Division, Nashik.`
`4.`	`The Additional Collector,` `Ahmednagar.`
`5.`	`The Tahsildar,` `Tahsil Office, Jamkhed,` `Dist. Ahmednagar.`

¶9

( 2 ) wp12235.16

¶10

	`WITH` `WRIT PETITION NO. 12236 OF`	`2016`
`Taib`	`ai Pravin Khavale,`	`..`	`Petitioner`
`Age.` `R/o.` `Dist`	`Major, Occ. Agril & Household,` `Village Apati, Tq. Jamkhed,` `. Ahmednagar.`
	`Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `Through its Principal Secretary,` `Rural Development Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.`	`..`	`Respondents`
`2.`	`The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Comm` `Aurangabad Division Committee No.1,` `Aurangabad.`	`ittee`	`,`
`3.`	`The Additional Collector,` `Ahmednagar.`
`4.`	`The Tahsildar,` `Tahsil Office, Jamkhed,` `Dist. Ahmednagar.` `WITH` `WRIT PETITION NO. 12239 OF`	`2016`
`Saro`	`j Kisan Kale`	`..`	`Petitioner`
`Age.` `R/o.`	`Major, Occ. Agril & Household,` `Village Apati,`
`Tq.`	`Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.` `Versus`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra` `Through its Principal Secretary,` `Rural Development Department,` `Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.`	`..`	`Respondents`

¶11

( 3 ) wp12235.16

¶12

2. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division Committee No.1, Nashik.

¶13

3. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶14

4. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar.

¶15

5. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶16

Mr.V.S. Undre, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶17

Mr.A.S. Shinde, AGP for respondent/State (WP12235/16)
Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent/State (WP12236/16)
Mr.S.B. Pulkundwar,AGP for respondent/State (WP12239/16)

¶18

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
Z.A. HAQ,JJ.
DATED :09.12.2016

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶20

1. Heard.

¶21

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for
final disposal at admission stage.

¶22

3.The petitioners are members of Village Panchayat
and have been elected as against seats prescribed for the
reserved category. Since the petitioners could not submit
Validation Certificates within the time prescribed under

¶23

section 10(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, the Additional Collector took up the proceedings for
holding them disqualified to continue as members and by
virtue of order dated 15.09.2016 directed cancellation of
membership of the petitioners with retrospective effect
from the date of their nomination.

¶24

4.In Writ Petition No.12235 of 2016, the
petitioner is in receipt of the Validation Certificate
issued by the competent Scrutiny Committee. However, the
certificate has been issued two days after the order of
disqualification impugned in the petition was issued by
the Collector. In other two matters, it is stated that
the verification claims of the petitioners are pending
with the competent Scrutiny Committee.

¶25

5.It is not within the reach of the petitioners to
secure the Validation Certificates within the time
prescribed under section 10(1-A) of the Act and it is for
the Scrutiny Committee to take decision in the matter
after considering merits of the claim.

¶26

6.In the matter of Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2)

¶27

Bom.C.R.712, the Division Bench of this Court has held
the requirement of production of validation certificate

¶28

within stipulated time, as directory. Similar view is
adopted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
matter of Alka w/o. Rajkaran Kshirsagar Vs. Sow. Shalini
w/o. Mahadeo Lokhande, Writ Petition No.3963 of 2013
decided on 16.09.2013. Although the Division Bench of
this Court in another matter has expressed contrary view,
the matter has been referred for consideration to the
Full Bench and the decision is awaited.

¶29

7.In view of the facts and circumstances, in our
considered view, the orders impugned in these petitions
passed by the Additional Collector holding the
petitioners' disqualification to continue as member of
the Village Panchayat with retrospective effect deserve
to be quashed and set aside and the orders impugned are
quashed and set aside.

¶30

8.In Writ Petition No.12236 of 2016 and Writ
Petition No.12239 of 2016, the Scrutiny Committee is
directed to take decision in respect of caste/tribe
certificate verification proposals of the concerned
petitioners in accordance with the provisions of law as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months
from today. It is accordingly directed. Respective
petitioners undertake to co-operate the Scrutiny
Committee in disposal of the proposals expeditiously.

¶31

9.Rule is accordingly made absolute in all the
matters. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

snk/2016/DEC16/ wp12235.16

Sojar Kisan Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sojar Kisan Kale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kewalbai Dattu Aurade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Javed Basheer Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jogeshwari Mahila Bachat Gat through Its Presidet v C Doke Vs Vividh Karykari Seva Sahkari Society Fair Price Shop Kandari through Its Chairman D P More and Ors.

Vinay Narayan Bhat and Others Vs the Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. through the Managing Director and Others

Taibai Pravin Khavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudam Shahaji Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others