Changona Digambar Dakhore v. The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:7137 ( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 42 WRIT PETITION NO. 3361 OF 2025 CHANGONA DIGAMBAR DAKHORE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS Mr.A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B. Jadhavar, AGP for the respondent-State.

CORAM

: KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 10.03.2025 PC :- 01.

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent-State.

02.

This petition is challenging the disqualification of the petitioner in view of Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as a Member of Grampanchayat, Tandala, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded, in December, 2023 from the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes category person. He could not produce Caste Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of election. In view of the same, the learned Collector vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed an order declaring the petitioner as disqualified to be a Member of the Grampanchayat.

( 2 ) 03.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that after submission of the proposal to the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner visited the office of the Scrutiny Committee several times, requesting to issue the Validity Certificate. He also pointed out that otherwise he would suffer disqualification. However, the Scrutiny Committee did not issue the Certificate in time. Ultimately, on 20.09.2024 the Scrutiny Committee issued the certificate. He, thus, submits that though the petitioner is belonging to the reserved category, still he is disqualified. It was material to see the social status. Not getting Validity Certificate in time certainly is beyond the control of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is made to suffer without any fault on his part.

04.

Learned AGP vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that looking to the wording of the Section, it is for the concerned person to submit Validity Certificate within time. In this case the petitioner was also required to furnish an undertaking that he would submit the Validity Certificate within time. Thus, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 3 ) 05.

The petitioner though has submitted that the opportunity is not given to her by the learned Collector, the fact remains that he could not produce the Validity Certificate within one year from the date of election. In view of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2025 with connected petitions, this Court finds that no case is made out calling for interference at the hands of this Court.

06.

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/mar25/wp3361.25