The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effect of COVID guidelines on the delayed production of the caste validity certificate and the applicability of settled law on the mandatory period for submitting the certificate were considered in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT :-

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioner/objector, learned Advocate Shri.Chetan Patil for the Respondent No.2 – Elected Sarpanch and learned AGP for Respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.2 – Iqbal was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bachani, Taluka : Kagal, District : Kolhapur on 25th March, 2019. He was elected for the seat reserved for backward class. As mandated, as per the provisions of Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, he could not produce the caste validity certificate within a period of twelve months. Though applied before the Caste Verification Committee, in time, he could get it belatedly on 27th October, 2020. Learned Collector – District Kolhapur refused to accept the objection taken by the Petitioner for disqualifying the Respondent No.2 – Iqbal vide its order dated 12th January, 2021. Its correctness is challenged by way of this Writ Petition.

3. The law on the point of effect of non production of caste validity certificate within a prescribed period, is well settled by Full Bench of this Court in case of Anant Ulahalkar and Another V/s. Chief Election Commissioner [2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431]. There, the election of a councillor from Bhor Municipal Council was challenged for not submitting caste validity certificate within prescribed period. There, the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 was involved. There is no dispute that those provisions are more or less similar to the provisions of Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The Full Bench has held that the period for submitting caste validity certificate is mandatory.

4. Learned Collector has not considered the observations in case of Anant’s case. But, he inspite of delayed production of validity certificate, rejected the objection. As said above, the law on this issue is settled. In this case, learned Advocate Shri.Chetan Patil for Elected Sarpanch has not contended that the law interpreted in case of Anant is not applicable to the facts of this case. In fact, dispute now raised in this Petition does not pertain to the said issue.

5. During arguments, learned Advocate Shri.Chetan Patil has supported the impugned order for different reason. According to him, he is not justifying the delayed production of validity certificate for normal reasons. But, he has justified the delay on account of the restrictions imposed during COVID period and particularly, on the basis of various directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020].

6. It is also true that both the learned Advocates have relied upon the judgments in which the effect of directions given in Suo Motu Writ Petition were considered. They were considered either by learned Single Judge or by a Division Bench. In some of the judgments, considering the guidelines in Suo Motu Writ Petition, the delay was condoned. Whereas, in some others, it was not condoned. In some of them, the issue about member of Local Authority is involved. Whereas, in one of the judgments, the issue about not taking steps under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and effect of guidelines in Suo Motu Writ Petition was considered.

Guidelines during Covid period

7. Before going into the contentious issues, it will be material to consider various guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. They are as follows :-