M.S. SONAK, J.

1. This reference concerns interpretation of Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (Section 9A). The main provision of Section 9A provides that any person desirous of contesting election to a reserved seat must submit along with his nomination papers, a caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority and a Caste Validity Certificate (Validity Certificate) issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Caste Act 2000). The first proviso to Section 9A, however, subject to certain conditions, permits a person to so contest even without submitting the Validity Certificate, provided, he files an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate within a period of six months from the date on which he is elected. The second proviso to Section 9A provides that, if such person fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor.

The main issue involved in this reference is whether the aforesaid stipulation of six months for production of Validity Certificate is only directory as held by the Division Bench (Coram S.B. Mhase and D.G. Karnik, JJ) in the case of Dadasaheb A. Gulve vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. 712 or whether the same is mandatory, as held by the Division Bench (Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ.) in Sadashiv J. Shrote vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 203.

2. The genesis of this reference is the order dated 11 August 2015 made in the present Writ Petition by the Division Bench (Coram: Naresh H. Patil & V.L. Achliya, JJ). This order takes cognizance of the aforesaid conflict and opines that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider whether reference needs to be made to a Larger Bench. The order also notes that the following questions of law arise:

(i) Whether the time limit prescribed u/s 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, for submission of caste validity certificate by elected Councilor is mandatory in nature?

(ii) Whether the failure on the part of person elected as Councilor to produce the caste validity certificate within the period of six months from the date on which he was declared elected, irrespective of facts and circumstances and eventuality beyond the control of such person to produce validity certificate would automatically result into termination of his election with retrospective effect?

(iii) Whether the validation of caste claim of elected Councilor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would automatically result into termination of such Councilor with retrospective operation?

3. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, by administrative order dated 20 November 2015 constituted the Full Bench and made the present reference. Later on, by an order dated 28 June 2016, the constitution of the Full Bench was changed to its present Coram.

4. Although, we are not required to go into the factual controversy in the petition, a brief reference to the facts will assist in the appreciation of factual setting in which the issues referred for determination arise.

5. Manisha (respondent no. 4), relying upon the first proviso to Section 9A filed her nomination papers on 29 May 2013 for election as a Councillor from Ward No. 2, Bhor Municipal Council (BMC), a position reserved for women belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC). Along with her nomination papers, she submitted the prescribed statutory undertaking that she will submit Validity Certificate within a period of six mo