Bombay High Court
Sau. Sangeeta Gajanan Khandare vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 27 November, 2018
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 WP4535-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4535/2017
...
Sau. Sangeeta Gajanan Khandare,
Aged : Major (35 years),
Occu- Household,
R/o Netansa, Tq. Risod,
District Washim .. PETITIONER
.. Versus ..
1. Additional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Additional Collector,
Washim, Tq. & Dist. Washim.
3. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Netsana, Tah. Risod,
Dist. Washim.
4. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati Division,
Committee No.2, Akola. .. RESPONDENTS
None Present for Petitioner.
Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1,2 &4.
....
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 27, 2018.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:27:27 :::
2 WP4535-17.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 08.11.2016, passed by respondent no.2- Additional Collector, disqualifying the petitioner as Member of the Gram Panchayat on the ground that she failed to produce caste validity certificate within a period of six months. The said action was based on Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
2. A pari materia provision i.e. Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils , Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, was subject matter of challenge before this Court. As there were conflicting judgments, the issue was referred to a Full Bench of this Court. By a reported judgment in the case of Anant H. Ulahalkar and another .vs. Chief Election Commissioner and ors, reported in 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 431, Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of Section 9A of the said Act and it was held that the requirement of submitting validity certificate within six months of being declared elected, was mandatory. The said Full Bench judgment of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. (Civil) Nos. 29874-75 of 2016, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:27:27 ::: 3 WP4535-17.odt granted stay of the judgment of the Full Bench. It appears that for the said reason, while issuing notice in the present writ petition on 17.07.2017, the ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed order dated 23.08.2018 in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 29874-75 of 2016 and dismissed the said petitions by upholding the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as follows:-
"We have read and considered the very elaborate reasoning adopted by the Full Bench of the High Court in coming to its conclusion that the aforesaid provisions of the statute engrafts a mandatory requirement in law. The High Court, in our considered view, very rightly came to the aforesaid conclusion along with the further finding that equities in individual case (s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory. In fact, the High Court has supported its decision by weighty reasons to hold that reading the provisions to be directory would virtually amount to rendering the same to be negatory."
4. Therefore, the validity of the pari materia provision has been upheld right upto the Supreme Court.
5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:27:27 ::: 4 WP4535-17.odt challenged the said identical provision i.e. Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, wherein the requirement of submitting validity certificate within a period of six months of being elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat, has been specified. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of pari material provision, the whole basis of challenge in the present writ petition is taken away.
6. On facts in the present case admittedly the petitioner failed to produce the validity certificate within the said period of six months and, therefore, the impugned order disqualifying her as Member of the Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be erroneous.
7. This petition was earlier listed for hearing on 12.11.2018 when Rule was granted and interim order in favour of the petitioner was continued. But today when this petition was called out twice, none has appeared for the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, since the requirement of submitting validity certificate within six months has been upheld, there is no reason why this petition should be kept ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:27:27 ::: 5 WP4535-17.odt pending in this Court. Hence in the light of the observations made above, the present writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Manish Pitale, J. ) ...
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 09:27:27 :::