2024:BHC-OS:4714 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.27588 OF 2023 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.29 OF 2019 Yashwant Vitthal Mane … Applicant and Sachin Bharat Thorat … Petitioner versus Yashwant Vitthal Mane … Respondent Mr Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwal (Reddy) for Applicant in SAYALI AEPL 27588 of 2023 and for Org. Respondent in EP 29 of 2019.

DEEPAK UPASANI Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji with Mr. Balwant Salunke, Mr. Amit Mane, for Petitioner in EP 29 of 2019.

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

Date: 2024.03.19 20:36:55 +0530 DATE : 15 MARCH 2024 P.C.

1. The Respondent has preferred this application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the Election Petition as it does not disclose any cause of action and is also barred by the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000).

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed in the Election Petition.

Petition :

3. The Petitioner in Election Petition is an elector for 247 Mohol Legislative Assembly Constituency. The said constituency is reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes of the State of Maharashtra. In the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 21 October 2019, the Respondent was a candidate set up by Nationalist Congress Party. On 24 October 2019, the Respondent was declared as elected from the said constituency.

4. The Petitioner asserts, when the Petitioner obtained certified copies of the requisite documents from the Returning Officer and in the proceedings before the Court, it was revealed that the Respondent in his nomination form had declared himself to be the resident and elector of Village Shelgaon, Taluka Indapur, Dist. Pune. The Respondent also claimed to belong to Kaikadi (SC). The Respondent submitted a caste certificate dated 18 December 2008 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldhana and the Validity Certificate dated 4 January 2010 issued by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Akola, constituted under the Act of 2000.

5. The Petitioner claimed that there is a voluminous record to show that the Respondent’s ancestors including the Respondent’s father, grand-father and grand-father’s brother, have all been residents of Village Shelgaon, even prior to the issue of the Presidential Order, 1950 and enactment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment), Act, 1976. Under the said Act of 1976, Kaikadi caste was included in the list of Scheduled Caste at Serial No.28 of Part X of the Schedule I of the said Act of 1976, only in relation to the localities in Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldhana, Nagpur, Wardha and Yawatmal Districts other than Rajura Tahsil.

6. The Petitioner, in substance, thus, asserts, the Respondent being a resident of Village Shelgaon, Tal. Indapur, Pune, does not belong to Kaikadi (SC) and, therefore, the Respondent could not have claimed the social status of scheduled caste. Hence, the Petitioner prays for a declaration that the election of Respondent in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly General Elections, 2019 held on 21 October 2019 is void, and to further set aside the said election.

7. In the grounds, it is, inter alia, asserted that the declaration made by the Respondent in his nomination form in respect of social status is false and he was not qualified for being chosen to fill the seat for Maharashtra Legislative Assembly reserved for Scheduled Castes.

Application for Rejection of the Plaint :

8. The Respondent contends, the Election Petition does not raise any of the grounds contemplated by Sections 100(1) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. T