DESHMUKH D.K., J.:-The writ petition has been place before us because the Division Bench of this Court has referred following three questions for consideration to the Full Bench by order dated 30-1-2004.

(1) Whether in the matter of scrutiny and verification of the caste certificate and/or the caste claims of candidates elected to the Local Self-Government, the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in Kum Madhuri Patils case so also the procedure prescribed by the Resolution dated 1st January, 1998, 19th April, 1999 and 25th January, 2000 could have any application even before coming in force of Act No. XXIII of 2001 for the reason that Local Self-Government Acts were holding field and more so in view of the bar contained in Article 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution of India and other statutory provisions contained in the Local Self-Government Act providing for a remedy of an Election Petition?

(2) Whether the provision contained in Act No. XXIII of 2001 are repugnant to the scheme flowing from the provisions contained in Amending Act No. XI of 2002 and XXIV of 2000 and the other relevant provisions contained in parent Local Self-Government Act?

(3) Whether the provisions contained in Act No. XXIII of 2001 are in conflict with the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243-O(b) and 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution of India?

2. Now, for the purpose of considering the first question, it becomes necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and other)1, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690 : 1994(6) S.C.C. 241. In that judgment the Supreme Court noted that the constitution permits reservation of seats in services under the State as also in schools and colleges for persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and also after referring the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, whereunder the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes have been declared, the Supreme Court noted in paragraph 9 of the judgment thus :

“It is common knowledge that endeavour of State to fulfill constitutional mandate of upliftment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes by providing for reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status while in fact disentitled to such status.”

The Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of its judgment in Madhuri Patils case observes thus :

“The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of the false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes of Scheduled Tribes of OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the constitution.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, found that it has become necessary that the caste certificate issued by the authorities has to be scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. The Supreme Court in that judgment laid down the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval, in the following manner.

“For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:

1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the officer, Taluka or Mandal level.

2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent Gazetted Officer or Non-Gazetted Officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities,