The mandatory nature of Section 10(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and the retrospective termination of the election as per the statute, emphasizing the statutory limitations on the right to be elected.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. The petitioner raise a challenge to his disqualification as a Member/Sarpanch of village panchayat, Kanadgaon, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, by invoking the provisions of Section 10(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

2. The petitioner approached this Court and on 27.12.2021, notice was issued to the respondents. On the respondents being heard, the parties expressed their consensus to argue the writ petition finally. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

3. I have heard learned Counsel Shri S.R. Andhale for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri P.G. Borade for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel Shri T.J. Momin, for respondent No. 3.

4. The petitioner contested the elections and came to be elected as a ‘Sarpanch’ of village panchayat, Kanadgaon, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar from the seat reserved for scheduled category. The result came to be declared on 10.01.2020. Since the post of Sarpanch was reserved for scheduled caste, and the petitioner claimed to be belonging to the said caste, before his election, he preferred an application to the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ahmednagar, for being conferred with validity certificate and pending the receipt of the said certificate, he contested the elections and was declared elected to fill up the post reserved for scheduled caste.

5. Respondent No. 3 preferred an application before the Collector, Ahmednagar on 25.01.2021, inviting attention of the Collector to the fact that the petitioner, who was elected as a Sarpanch of village panchayat Kanadgaon to fill up the post reserved for scheduled candidate, had submitted an affidavit before the Returning Officer while filing of his nomination form and had undertaken to produce the validity certificate within a period of one year from being declared elected, but till date, he has not obtained the validity certificate and hence, he has incurred a disqualification to continue as a Sarpanch and his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively.

6. Pertinent to note that, on 15.11.2021, the Collector, Ahmednagar issued a notice to the petitioner by inviting his attention to Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act as amended by the Government Notification dated 14.12.2018, which made it mandatory for a candidate elected upon the reserved post, to produce the validity certificate within a period of one year from the date of he being declared as elected, and on failure to produce the validity certificate, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Member. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was specifically reminded that he was elected on the post of Sarpanch reserved for scheduled category, on 09.01.2020 and therefore, he should produce a proof of submitting his caste certificate for verification to the Caste Validity Committee, on or before 26.11.2021. Failing to abide by the same, he shall incur a disqualification.

7. The petitioner responded to the said communication on 25.11.2021, wherein he stated that he had forwarded his caste certificate for it’s verification to the Scrutiny Committee, but he has not yet obtained the said certificate and therefore, he cannot produce the same. He specifically pleaded that he is not at fault, as he had forwarded his certificate for verification prior to his election, but the Committee has not yet issued him a validity certificate. This delay was sought to be condoned and he sought the time to be extended, to submit the validity certificate. Along with his application, he also forwarded a letter addressed to the Committee on 20.08.2020, by which he had forwarded some documents to the Committee, which were found to be deficient in determining his claim.

8. The request made by the petitioner to extend the time for filing the validity certific