SAGIRUDDIN ISRAILUDDIN MISTRY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mendadkar for the Petitioners. Mr. R. V. Govilkar for the Respondent No.5 - who is main contesting respondent.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 10th June 2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, Exhibit A to the petition. They have also further prayed to prohibit Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in relying upon the impugned order dated 10th June, 2005 and further claim declaration that the caste certificate dated 20th November, 1991 issued to the Petitioner No.1 by the respondent No. 6 Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, North Solapur, District Solapur, be declared valid, legal and subsisting.

(3.) This petition which is filed on 5.6.2005 came for hearing earlier before the Division Bench on 21.6.2005, on that day ad interim stay was granted and it was adjourned to 23.6.2005. Then on 23.6.2005 Rule was issued and hearing was expedited and interim stay in terms of prayers (e) and (f) was granted. Then before the another Division Bench on 16.6.2006 grievance was made that even though the petition is expedited it has not been heard so far, and, therefore, application was taken out by the respondent No.5 for fixing the date of hearing. Division Bench directed that the matter should be placed high on board on 20.11.2006. Matter did not appear on that day, and, therefore, again on 4.12.2006 the respondent No.5 moved this court for fixing the date of hearing because the municipal elections were to be held in the near future. Accordingly, we fixed the date of hearing on 7.12.2006 (as the next municipal elections are now declared to be held in the near future i.e. February, 2007). The matter was heard on that day and it was posted on 12.12.2006 for judgment at 3 p.m. Our judgment was ready to be delivered on 12.12.2006 at 3.00 p.m. However, an attempt was made to see that we do not deliver the judgment and the matter is posted for hearing after vacation and if this attempt was successful then the petitioner No.2 would have continued as Corporator of the BMC till the next elections. We have taken note of that development and passed separate order today i.e. on 15.12.2006, before pronouncing this Judgment.