1. After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, I had observed in my order dated 24.08.2017 in paragraphs 2 to 12 as under:

"2. The election program for the election to the Jalgaon District Planning Committee has been published on 05/08/2017. The nomination papers have been scrutinized from 16/08/2017 and 18/08/2017 was the day for publication of the list of valid nominations.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her nomination paper by the District Collector of Jalgaon which was earlier accepted by the Returning Officer.

4. As per the election program, the elections were to be held for two constituencies, namely, Rural Area Constituency and Small Urban Area Constituency. In so far as the reserved post for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in the said election is concerned, Rule 16 (3) Maharashtra District Planning Committee (Election) Rules, 1999 framed under of the Maharashtra District Planning Committee (Constitution and Functions) Act, 1998, require a certificate from the authority certifying that the candidate is elected to the respective body against the reserved seat. The authorities prescribed are C.E.O. of the Zilla Parishad or the C.O. of the Municipality or Nagar Panchayat and the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.

5. The petitioner makes a statement on oath that she has been elected against the reserved seat for the Scheduled Caste – Women from the Nagar Parishad, Chalisgaon. The certificate issued by the C.O. of the Nagar Parishad, Chalisgaon is at page No. 20.

6. Respondent No.4 herein, Asmita had approached the District Collector against the rejection of her nomination. She has not challenged the acceptance of the nomination of the petitioner. She has only quoted the example of the petitioner in paragraph No. 2 E of the appeal to indicate that when the petitioner was elected against the Scheduled Caste post from the Pachora Municipal Council, her nomination paper was accepted and the nomination paper of respondent No. 4 was rejected, though she was elected to the position reserved for Scheduled Caste. She has cited the example of the petitioner, only to canvass a point that she being identically placed, her nomination paper should have been accepted.

7. Grievance of the petitioner is that the matter pertaining to Asmita/respondent No. 4 has nothing to do with the case of the petitioner and the petitioner obviously not being a party to the proceeding being initiated by Asmita, finds her nomination form rejected by the District Collector by the impugned order passed in the case of Asmita.

8. Rule 16 (3) reads as under:

In the case of a reserved seat, a candidate qualified to contest the election to such seat, should produce certificate from the respective Authority certifying that he is elected to the respective body against; the reserved seat. (Authority – Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad or Chief Officer of the Municipality, or the Nagar Panchayat and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.)

9. There is no dispute as regards the Rule that a person must primarily be elected to the post reserved for a particular Caste or Tribe in the elections of the Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Corporation and then he or she would be entitled for contesting the elections under the Elections to the District Planning Committee.

10. Page No. 20 indicates that the petitioner was elected to the Chalisgaon Municipal Council from the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. Learned AGP, on the basis of the record and the Rules, submits that if this aspect is true, then the petitioner would be eligible for contesting the election to the District Planning Committee from the Small Urban Area Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.

11. Considering the above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 01/09/2017. Matter shall appear in the supplementary board. Besid