Vishranti Sadashiv Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3107 OF 2019 Vishranti w/o Sadashiv Jadhav, Age: 56 years, Occ: Household/ Corporator, R/o. Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.

The President, District Cast Scrutiny and Verification Committee, Parbhani 3.

The Collector, Parbhani Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 4.

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani 5.

State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Through it's Commissioner ..RESPONDENTS Mr J.M. Murkute, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondents/State CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : 12th MARCH, 2019

(2) ORAL ORDER :

It is the case of the petitioner, respondent no. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is seized of the claim for verification, as the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Caste.

2.

According to the petitioner, respondent - Collector, in exercise of powers under section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, has passed an order thereby disqualifying the petitioner as member of the Municipal Council. The petitioner then submits that the claim is pending since 2016 and the matter is closed for orders by the Scrutiny Committee on 24.10.2018, as such, directions be issued for deciding the claim within time bound program.

3.

The learned A.G.P appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 and 5 submits that in the

(3) facts and circumstances, the Court may pass an appropriate order.

4.

The petitioner has come out with a categorical statement that the caste claim initiated by him way back in 2016 has reached at the stage of delivering the judgment, however, though the matter was closed for orders on 24.10.2018, for last almost six months, the Committee has not delivered the order either way. 5.

It was expected of the Committee to decide the claim expeditiously particularly when, in the election matters, the consequences of nonsubmission of validity certificate are provided. 6.

In the aforesaid background, it will be appropriate, in our opinion, to direct the respondent - Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously and in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(4) 7.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe