BHASKAR TIMAPPA SHETTY Vs. CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel Mr. Sakhare for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Apte for respondent No. 6 and learned AGP for the State -Respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a resident of thane, contested a election as a Corporator for thane Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 24 (A)which was reserved for scheduled caste. The petitioner, claiming to be a person belonging to the scheduled caste, contested that election for the seat reserved for scheduled caste category. A complaint was made by Respondent No. 3 for scrutiny and cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 i. e. Caste scrutiny Committee passed an order on 2. 1. 2003 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner and directing the Collector, Thane to initiate action against the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 - Thane Municipal Commissioner issued a letter dated 7. 1. 2003 to the petitioner disqualifying him as a corporator from Ward no. 24 (A) of the Thane Constituency. This letter of Respondent No. 6 is at Exhibit-A of this petition. It is this letter which is challenged by the petitioner, mainly, on the ground that the commissioner has no powers to pass order about disqualification of the petitioner. So far as decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner is concerned, We were informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the challenge to that order at the behest of the petitioner was unsuccessful through out.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sakhare, appearing for the petitioner, therefore, made only one submission and, that is, that the Commissioner has no powers to disqualify the petitioner. Mr. Sakhare relied upon the judgment of the division Bench (Justice Lodha and Justice Shah)in the case of Martin Nirmal Moresh vs. State of maharashtra, reported in [2001 (4) Mh. L. J. 643] and other two judgments of Justice Khanwilkar in the cases of Sajeda Nihal Ahmed vs. Malegaon municipal Corporation, Malegaon and others reported in [2005 (1) Mh. L. J. 87] and Madhukar deoman Patil and others vs. State of maharashtra, reported in [2004 (4) Mh. L. J. 485].