Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Govind Kondaji Nagapure And ... vs Surekha Mahendra Wakale And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 553 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 553 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Govind Kondaji Nagapure And ... vs Surekha Mahendra Wakale And ... on 7 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
                                          {1}
                                                                 wp 12139.17.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO.1239 OF 2017


 1        Govind Kondaji Nagapure,
          Age: 51 years, occu: Agriculture,
          R/o Diwan Mala,
          Taluka & District - Dhule


 2        Laxmibai Pandit Sonawane
          Age: 56 years, occu: household
          R/o Diwan Mala,
          Taluka & District - Dhule

 3        Avinash Pandit Balsane,
          Age: 27 years, occu: service,
          R/o Laling,
          Taluka & District - Dhule


 4        Jyotsana Ravindra Thakare,
          Age: 33 years, occu: Household
          R/o Laling,
          Taluka & District - Dhule                                Petitioners


          Versus


 1        Sau. Surekha Mahendra Wakale,
          Age: 30 years, occu: Household,
          R/o At post - Laling,
          Taluka & District - Dhule


 2        Gram Panchayat Laling
          Taluka & District - Dhule


 3        The Tahsildar,
          Taluka and District Dhule

 4        The Divisional Commissioner,
          Nashik Division,
          Nashik




::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 01:04:13 :::
                                              {2}
                                                                          wp 12139.17.odt

 5        The Collector,
          Dhule
          District - Dhule.                                             Respondents

Mr. S.P. Shah advocate for the petitioners Mr. A.P. Baraskar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 _______________

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J (Date : 7TH March, 2017.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3 This is a case, wherein, the petitioners have been

disqualified only because, though they were elected as the

Members of the Gram Panchayat from the reserve category, they

did not furnish the caste validity certificate within stipulated time

of six months from the date of declaration of result of the

elections.

4 This stipulation of six months period in section 10(1A) of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act has been a matter of debate

with some benches of this Court, taking a view that the provision

{3} wp 12139.17.odt

is directory, the other benches taking a view that the provision

had a mandatory effect. Ultimately, full bench of this Court in Writ

Petition No.10478/2014 set at rest the issue, by holding that it

has a mandatory effect, meaning thereby any failure to furnish

caste validity certificate within the stipulated period, would result

in inviting disqualification of the Membership. However,

subsequently, the Honourable Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.29874

of 2016 stayed the order of the full bench of this Court on

13.2.2017. It also stayed the order of another bench of this Court

passed on 9.12.2016 in Writ Petition No.10478 of 2014. With this

stay order, I am of the view that, the question of law is still open

and therefore, in circumstances peculiar to this case, arising from

pendency of an appeal as well as application for interim stay

before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, some interim

protection deserves to be granted to the petitioners.

5 Accordingly, it is directed that, till the application for grant

of interim stay is considered and decided by the learned Divisional

Commissioner, there shall be an interim stay to the order of the

learned Collector dated 22.12.2016 in Applications Nos.61, 62, 63

and 64 of 2016. The appeal should be decided as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within two months from the appearance of

{4} wp 12139.17.odt

the parties.

6 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly and Rule is made

absolute in the above terms. No costs.

( S.B. SHUKRE , J)

vbd

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter