2007 Supreme(Bom) 1741
S.B.MHASE, D.G.KARNIK
Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S. Godbole for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5691/07, 4416/07, 4417/07, 4422/07, 4429/07, 5692/07, 5696/07, 5705/07, 5766/07, 5777/07, 5830/07, 6077/07 and 6768/08.
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3793/07, 5144/07, 5730/07, 6187/07, 6188/07, 6189/07, 6191/07 and 6192/07.
Mr.L.M. Acharya for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4165/07 with C.A. No.2251/07, Writ Petition No.4250/07 with C.A. No.2257/07, Writ Petition No.4312/07 with C.A. No.2265/07, Writ Petition NO.4313/07 with C.A. No.2258/07, Writ Petition No.4335/07 with C.A. No.2263/07 and Writ Petition No.4336/07 with C.A. No.2264/07.
Mr.Avinash Avhad for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5074/07.
Mr.P.D. Dalvi for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5529/07.
Mr.Vijay Patil for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5865/07.
Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rahul Walvekar for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5867/07, 5872/07, 5880/07 and 5950/07.
Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5874/07 and 5875/07. Mr.Pratap Patil for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5878/07.
Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5882/07, 6587/07 and 6596/07.
Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6377/07.
Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6568/07.
Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State.
Ms.Anjali Iyer for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.4165/07.
Mr.G.S. Godbole for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.4250/07 with C.A. No.2257/07.
Mr.A.J. Bhor for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.4313/07 with C.A. No.2258/07.
Mr.Kirit Hakani for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition Nos.4335/07 and 4336/07.
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for respondent no.9 in Writ Petition No.4416/07 and for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.6377/07.
Mr.S.B. Shetye for respondent no.10 in Writ Petition No.4416/07, for respondent no.12 in Writ Petition No.4417/07, for respondent no.9 in Writ Petition Nos.4422/07, 5730/07 & 5777/07, for respondent no.11 in Writ Petition Nos.4429/07 & 5766/07, for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition Nos.5144/07, 6187/07, 6188/07, 6189/07 & 6191/07, for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.5529/07, for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition Nos.5692/07, 5696/07 & 6077/07, and for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition Nos.5882/07 & 6587/07. Mr.R.G. Ketkar for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition Nos.4417/07 and 4422/07. Mr.M.V. Bhutekar for respondent nos.9 to 11 in writ Petition No.4417/07 and for respondents no.9 & 10 in Writ Petition No.4429/07.
Mr.P.D. Dalvi for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.5144/07.
Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5529/07. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.5529/07.
Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent no.10 in Writ Petition
No.5830/07.
Mr.J. Shekhar for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition
Nos.5865/07 and 5878/07.
Mr.M.S. Lagu for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition
No.5872/07.
Mr.V.D. Borwankar for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6188/07.
Mr.U.B. Nighot for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6189/07.
Mr.O.A. Siddiqui for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6192/07.
Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition
No.6587/07.
ORDER
D.G. Karnik, J.
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 5-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "MMC Act"), section 5-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "BPMC Act"), section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "Municipalities Act"), section 12-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis act, 1961 (for short "Zilla Parishads act") and section 10-A in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (for short "the Village Panchayats Act"). In the alternative, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the time limit of four months prescribed for production of a caste/tribe validity certificate by the second proviso to each of the aforesaid sections should be held to be directory.
2. Since all the petitions raise common questions of law and challenge the constitutional validity on the same grounds and also put forward the same interpretation to the second proviso which are identical in each of the abovementioned sections of the Acts, we are passing this common order.
3. Article 243-D of
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
