Sharda Anil Garje vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9081 Bom

                                         1                W.P.No.12157/17

                                    UNREPORTED

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
                                  AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD.



                          WRIT PETITION NO.12157 OF 2017.


          Sharda Anil Garje,
          Age major, Occ.Housewife
          and Agril., R/o Mohoj
          Devadhe, Tq.Pathardi,
          District Ahmednagar.                  ... Petitioner.

                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          through the Secretary
          Rural Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

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

          3. The Divisional Commissioner,
          Nashik Division, Nashik.

          4. The Additional Collector,
          Ahmednagar.

          5. The Tahsildar, Pathardi,
          Tq. Pathardi, District
          Ahmednagar.                           ... Respondents.

                                         ...


          Mr.A.P.Avhad, advocate for the Petitioner.
          Mr.P.S.Patil, Additional Government Pleader for
          the State.
                                   ...




::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:29:22 :::
                                                2                 W.P.No.12157/17

                                     CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                             S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

Date : 27.11.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, the petition is taken up for final

hearing.

2. The petitioner is disqualified on the

ground that validity certificate is not submitted

within six (6) months as required U/s 10-1A of

the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

3. Learned counsel submits that though

Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Anant H.

Ulahalkar and another Vs. Chief Election

Commissioner and others" reported in 2017 (1)

Mh.L.J. 431, had held that the proviso to Section

10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act,

is mandatory, however, the judgment of the Full

Bench of this Court is stayed by the Apex Court

in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.29874-29875 of

2016.

4. We have heard learned Additional

Government Pleader.

5. It is submitted that after lapse of six

(6) months the petitioner has been issued with

the validity certificate by the Committee.

6. In light of the above we pass the

following order :

(a) The impugned order disqualifying the

petitioner on account of non-submission of

validity certificate within six (6) months is

quashed and set aside. In case the Apex Court

upholds the judgment of the Full Bench of this

Court, liberty to the Respondents to take fresh

action.

          (b)              Rule accordingly made absolute in above

          terms.        NO costs.



                           Sd/-                                    Sd/-

               (S.M.GAVHANE,J.)                      (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

          asp/office/wp12157.17