D. D. SINHA, J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of Mr. R. D.

Wakode, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Nitin Sambre, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

2. Grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is in respect of declaration of election of the petitioner invalid for want of submission of caste validity certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is elected as a Councillor of Municipal Council on 8th October, 2007 and, as per the then proviso to Section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, ("the Act of 1965" in short) the petitioner was entitled to submit caste validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of election, provided that he/she has applied for verification of her caste claim prior to filing of the nomination.

3. It is contended that the petitioner has contested the election of Councillor for the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes; she had submitted caste certificate for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee prior to filing of her nomination paper, however, could not submit validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of election i.e. 8th October, 2007 since the same was pending for verification before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is contended that the inaction on the party of the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of three months is not the fault of the petitioner and the petitioner should not be punished for the said inaction to the Scrutiny Committee. It is contended that in such situation, the impugned order may kindly be stayed and a direction be given to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period and till then petitioner be permitted to remain a Councillor.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner, being consistent with the provisions of law.

5. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the proviso to Section 9-A of the Act of 1965 which was inserted vide Clause 5 of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. XII of 2006. It will be appropriate to reproduce the text of the said clause which reads thus:

"Mah. XL of 1965

Amendment of section 9-A of Mah. XL of 1965 :- 5. To Section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagpur Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, the following provisos shall be added, namely:-

"Provided that, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for the verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of. filing the nomination paper but who has not received the validity certificate on the date of filing of nomination paper,-

(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the validity certificate or any other proof for having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of three months from the date of his election, the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee:

Provided further that, if the person fails to produce the validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of his election, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor."

6. In the instant case, the following facts are not in dispute:

The petitioner contested the election of the Councillor from the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner has submitted his caste claim to the Scrutiny Committee for verification before filing the nomination and, as per the proviso to Section 9-A the petitioner was required to submit validity certificate within a period of three months from the date of election i.e. 8th October, 2007 wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document