JUDGMENT :

Anil L. Pansare, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Narayan Phadnis, Advocate for the Petitioners; Mr. Nitin Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6; Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 and Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.

2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of respective parties.

3. By means of this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 27 April, 2018 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee thereby granting validity in favour of Respondent No. 7 as 'Kunbi' Other Backward Class. They are further seeking to quash and set aside the caste certificate issued by the Respondent No. 6-Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehkar, District Buldana, in favour of Respondent No. 7-Manishkumar Akhare as 'Kunbi'.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are the residents of Lakh, Taluqa Aundha-Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli and also the voters in the election of Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. Both of them have contested the election as a Member of the Zilla Parishad held in January/February 2017. The Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 7 had contested the election as a Member of the Zilla Parishad, Hingoli from one and the same Prabhag.

5. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 6-SDO has no jurisdiction to issue caste certificate to the Respondent No. 7 because the ancestors of Respondent No. 7 were resident of Mhalasgaon, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist Hingoli. The Respondent No. 7 who claims to be 'Kunbi" OBC, has contested the election as a Member of Zilla Parishad, Hingoli from Prabhag No. 32 which is reserved for Other Backward Class candidate and was elected from the said Prabhag.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent No. 7 has obtained caste certificate by playing fraud upon the authorities below. The Respondent No. 7 has made an application dated 13 December 2016 before the Respondent No. 6-SDO who, on the same day, issued the caste certificate in favour of the Respondent No. 7 as 'Kunbi' OBC. The Respondent No. 7 then submitted the said certificate for verification to the Respondent No. 2-Committee. The Petitioners objected for issuance of validity certificate, inter alia on the ground that Respondent No. 7's family is not resident of Shelgaon-Deshmukh, Tq. Mehkar rather Respondent No. 7 and his family are permanent resident of Mhalasgaon, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli. It is also submitted before the Respondent No. 2-Committee by the Petitioners that the genealogy submitted before the Committee by Respondent No. 7 is incorrect and illegal. The same is not the family of Respondent No. 7 and that he has taken an undue advantage of one entry of his relative having name as Vithoba. Accordingly, the order impugned has been challenged by the Petitioners on multiple grounds.

7. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned senior Advocate for Respondent No. 7 has raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the petition. According to him, the results of the election were declared on 27 February 2017. The first meeting was held on 21 March 2017. The tenure of the Council is for a period of five years. Resultantly, the tenure will come to an end on 21 March 2022. In these circumstances, it will be an exercise in futility to issue any writ including the writ of quo warranto. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mahesh Chandra vs. Tara Chand Mod AIR 1958 Allahabad 374. In this case, the judgment was passed by majority in respect of the provisions under Section 87A of the U.P. Municipalities Act relating to calling of the meeting and the actual holding of the meeting as also conduct of the meeting itself. It is held that first portion of the said Section is mandatory but not the second portion. However, on the point, as to whether the discretion in the writ jurisdiction should be exercised