Writ Petition No.4501 of 2002

1st October, 2004

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. L. M. ACHARYA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. B. D. JOSHI,Ms. S. J. Billimoria.,Mr. R. M. PATNE
Other Counsel: Mr. PRASHANT KARANDE,Mr. J. H. SAWANT

Cases Cited:
Sujit Vasant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004(4) ALL MR 537=2004(3) Mh.L.J. 1109 [Para 8,11,15]
Mohan Parasnath Goswami Vs. The Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certificates, 2003(2) ALL MR 409 [Para 14,16]
Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1980 SC 346 [Para 14]
Smith Vs. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956(1) All ER 855 [Para 18]
State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh, (1991)4 SCC 1 [Para 18]
Hadkinson Vs. Hadkinson, (1952)2 All ER 567 [Para 18]
Chuck Vs. Cremer, (1946)1 Co-op. Temp Cott 205 (342) [Para 18]
Nalla Senapati Sarkarai Mandariar Pallayakottai Vs. Shri. Ambal Mills, AIR 1966 Madras 53 [Para 18]
Tayabbhai M. Bagasrwalla Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt.Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1240 [Para 18]

JUDGMENT

H. L. GOKHALE, J.:- The Petitioner herein is a Municipal Corporator elected to Respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from a Ward reserved for the Backward Class candidates. Respondent No.1 is the Additional Municipal Commissioner of Respondent No.2. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Scrutiny Committee") appointed by Respondent No.4-State of Maharashtra, by its decision/order dated 23rd/29th July, 2002, cancelled the Caste Certificate on the basis of which the Petitioner had contested the election to Respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation. This order cancelled the certificate of validity issued to the Petitioner. Consequently, Respondent No.1 issued an order dated 14th August, 2002 stating that as a result of the said order of the Scrutiny Committee, Section 16(1C)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the "MMC Act") will come into application and the Petitioner shall be deemed to have vacated his office as a Corporator from the date of the declaration given by the Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No.3 to this Petition is the Collector of Mumbai.

2. It is this order dated 14th August, 2002, issued by the 1st Respondent-Additional Municipal Commissioner that is challenged in this Petition. It is material to note that the Petitioner has not challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 23rd/29th July, 2002 mentioned earlier. When this Petition was admitted on 4th September, 2002, a stay was granted against the enforcement of the impugned order. The order of the Scrutiny Committee had been passed on the complaint of one Mr. Baban Sakharam Gaonkar. After admission of this Petition, this Mr. Gaonkar filed an application seeking to join him as the Respondent in this Petition. We have allowed him to intervene in the matter and have heard his Counsel along with the Counsel appearing for all other parties.

3. Brief facts leading to this Petition are as follows :-

The Petitioner applied for issuance of a Caste Certificate to Respondent No.3-Collector on 28-12-2001. The Deputy Collector, Mumbai, issued him a Caste Certificate on 31st December, 2001 certifying that he belonged to the caste "Hindu Ahir", which was recognised as one of the Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) other than Sindhi at Sr. No.198 under the Government Resolution (GR) dated 5th October, 1979 issued by the Social Welfare Department of Respondent No.4. The Scrutiny Committee also issued him a Validity Certificate on 8th January, 2002 certifying that he belonged to the caste "Hindu Ahir" recognised as O.B.C. The Petitioner produced these certificates for the purposes of contesting the election to the Ward reserved for the Backward Class candidates. He contested from Ward No.25 (Jijamata Udyan, Bhyculla Market Area) which Ward was reserved for Backward Class candidate. The Petitioner was elected in that election wherein he defeated the above-referred Mr. Baban Gaonkar and other candidates. This Mr. Baban Gaonkar filed an Election Petition bearing No.59 of 2002 to challenge the Petitioner's election on the ground that he did not belong to the O.B.C. category. That Petition is pending for its decision.

4. It has so happened that on a query made by Mr. Gaonkar, the office of the Social Welfare Department of Respondent No.4-State Government informed him that the caste "Ahir" was recognised as "Nomadic Tribe" (N.T.) at Sr. No.29 which is similar to the caste "Dhangar". It is on the basis of this information that the said Mr. Gaonkar filed a complaint to the Scrutiny Committee on 12th June, 2002 contending that the Petitioner belonged to a Nomadic Tribe and not to the O.B.C. It is this complaint of Mr. Gaonkar which has come to be allowed by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 23rd/29th July, 2002. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the material aspects of the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee records that on receiving the complaint of Mr. Gaonkar and some further information from the Government, notices were issued to the Petitioner as well as the above-referred Mr. Gaonkar. The Petitioner filed his reply and supporting documents. The Scrutiny Committee noted that as per the Government Resolutions dated 25th May, 1990 and 6th August, 1992, the caste "Ahir" had come to be excluded from the other Backward Class category and had been included in the Nomadic Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee further noted that in his application for the caste certificate, the Petitioner had mentioned his caste as "Ahir". However, in the Application Form, he had no where stated that he was claiming to belong to O.B.C. As far as the complaint against the Petitioner is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee made inquiries with the Social Welfare Department and by its letter dated 1st June, 2002, the Department clarified that the caste "Ahir" was included in the Nomadic Tribes and not in the Other Backward Class. On a correspondence with the office of Respondent No.3-Collector, he informed the Scrutiny Committee, by his letter dated 19th July, 2002, that the caste certificate was issued through the computer. In the computer Hindu Ahir caste was recorded as O.B.C. and the computer remained to be updated. That is how the caste of the Petitioner came to be wrongly classified as Other Backward Class. The Committee lastly observed that -

".... it is quite clear that Caste Certificate issued on 31-12-2001 to Shri. Janardhan Vasant Yadav, who belongs to Hindu Ahir Caste which wrongly recognized as "Other Backward Class" instead of "Nomadic Tribes" deserves to be cancelled as Caste Verification Committee issued on the basis of above Caste Certificates also deserves to be cancelled."

The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, allowed the complaint and cancelled the Caste Certificate dated 31st December, 2001 issued to the Petitioner herein. By the same order, it also cancelled the Validity Certificate issued to the Petitioner.

5. As mentioned earlier, on receiving the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the 1st Respondent-Additional Municipal Commissioner, informed the Petitioner, by his letter dated 14th August, 2002, that as per that order, the Petitioner did not belong to the Other Backward Class and as such, his claim towards the same was held invalid. He recorded that the Petitioner's Caste Certificate dated 31st December, 2001 and Validity Certificate dated 8th January, 2002 had been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, he observed and ordered as follows:-

"As per Section 16(1C)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, the Councillor shall be disqualified for being such Councillor consequent upon the Caste Certificate Verification Committee or any other Competent Authority specified by the State Government for the purpose of scrutiny of the Caste Certificates, declaring the Caste Certificate of such Councillor to be invalid and cancelling the same, on the declaration made by such person claiming to be belonging to the reserved category, and thereupon the Councillor shall be deemed to have vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of such Certificate to be invalid and cancellation of the same by the said Committee or the Competent Authority.

In view of the aforesaid provision, you Shri. Janardhan Vasant Yadav are deemed to have vacated your office on and from 29-7-2002, which please note."

7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner were principally three-fold.

(i) A prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner due to the office of the Collector not updating its computer. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner belongs to Hindu Ahir Caste, which falls under the category of Nomadic Tribe. He further submitted that the certificate, which was issued to the Petitioner as belonging to O.B.C., may be cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee but Respondent No.1 ought to take notice of the fact that the Petitioner belongs to a Nomadic Tribe and should not have given the declaration that he is deemed to have vacated his seat. This was on the basis of his submission that the Scrutiny Committee does not dispute the fact of the Petitioner belonging to the Hindu Ahir Caste, which falls under the category of Nomadic Tribe.

(ii) Mr. Acharya submitted that this submission is to be considered on the background that the seat, which was contested by the Petitioner, was meant for a Backward Class candidate and not merely to "Other Backward Class" (O.B.C.) candidates. The Backward Class is defined under Section 3(a3) of the MMC Act to include O.B.C. and V.J. (Vimukta Jatis - Denotified Tribes) and N. T. (Nomadic Tribes). If Respondent No.1 was to take note of the Petitioner's belonging to the N.T., there was no reason for him to pass the deeming order.

(iii) The Municipal Commissioner has not applied his mind to the order passed by the Scrutiny committee. He ought to have scrutinised that order carefully. Under Section 16(1C)(a) of the BMC Act, which is relied upon by the Municipal Commissioner, a Councillor is deemed to have vacated his office, if the Scrutiny Committee declares the Caste Certificate to be invalid and the same is cancelled on the ground of the same having been based on a false claim or a declaration. Mr.Acharya submitted that the Petitioner had not made any false claim or a false declaration. He had throughout claimed that he belonged to the Hindu Ahir Caste. It was the responsibility of the Competent Authority from the Collector's office to issue him the correct certificate. It was the error of the Collector's office that they issued him an O.B.C. certificate and not a N.T. certificate. Since the Petitioner had not made any false claim or a declaration, his election could not be invalidated.

8. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, made three submissions :-

(i) Firstly, he submitted that the function of the Scrutiny Committee and the consequences of its decision are regulated by Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 viz. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the "Caste Certificate Act". It is this Act which provides under Section 10(4) thereof that if a person procures a false caste certificate as belonging to such caste or such false caste certificate is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, he shall be disqualified from being a member of any statutory body, if he had contested the election on a reserved seat. He further submitted that the validity of this section has been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2004(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 1109 : [2004(4) ALL MR 537] wherein the Full Bench has held that the section will come into force the moment the caste certificate is invalidated.

(ii) Secondly, he submitted that the Municipal Commissioner has no option once any such decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is received by him. He cannot go behind that decision and scrutinise it closely. In the instant case, the Petitioner knew as to what was the complaint of Mr. Gaonkar and that the complaint had been allowed and the certificate, on the basis of which he had contested the election as belonging to the O.B.C., had come to be set aside. In the circumstances, the Municipal Commissioner had to act accordingly.

(iii) Thirdly, Mr. Joshi submitted that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee has been given a finality under Section 7 of the Caste Certificate Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any Authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Joshi, therefore, submitted that since the Petitioner had not chosen to challenge the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, it had obtained a finality. Once it had obtained a finality, the Municipal Commissioner had no option but to act accordingly.

9. The submissions of Mr. Joshi were adopted and supported by Mr. Karande, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervener, who also reiterated that the decision of Respondent No.1 could not be faulted for having acted in accordance with the mandate of the Statute.

10. Before we proceed to examine the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be advisable to refer to some of the relevant provisions governing this controversy. It is to be noted, firstly, that the reservation to the Backward Class candidates is provided under Section 11 of the BMC Act, which lays down as to how the Municipal Corporation is to be constituted and as to how elections are to be held to the Municipal Corporation. Section 5(A)(1) of the BMC Act reads as follows :-

"5A.(1)Reservation of seats. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5 or in section 19, for the purpose of any general election held after the commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils (Amendment) Act, 1994, such number of seats out of the total number of seats to be filled in by direct election, shall be reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women and the Backward Class of Citizens, as provided in sub-section (2) to (5), both inclusive."

The Backward Classes are defined under Section 3(a3) of the BMC Act, which reads as follows :-

"Backward Class of Citizens" means such classes or parts of or groups within such classes as are declared, from time to time, by the State Government to be Other Backward Classes and Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes."

A joint reading of both these sections makes it clear that certain number of seats to the Municipal Corporation are reserved for the Backward Class candidates and that the phrase "Backward Classes" does not merely include the Other Backward Classes. Section 3(a3) provides that, apart from the Other Backward Classes, V. J. and N.T. are also included in the definition of Backward Classes. The definition is an inclusive definition and, therefore, a person belonging to Nomadic Tribe can also claim that he belongs to a Backward Class and contest the election as such on the basis of a certificate issued by the competent Authority that he belongs to the Nomadic Tribe. The submission of Mr. Acharya in this behalf deserves to be accepted.

11. As far as the consequence of invalidating the caste certificate is concerned, Section 16(1C)(a) of the BMC Act provides as follows :-

"(1C)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1B), a Councillor who has been elected to a reserved seat as mentioned in sub-section (1B), shall be disqualified for being such Councillor consequent upon the Caste Certificate Verification Committee or any other Competent Authority specified by the State Government for the purpose of scrutiny of the Caste Certificates, declaring the Caste Certificate of such Councillor to be invalid and cancelling the same, on the ground of the same having been based on a false claim or declaration made by such person claiming to be belonging to the reserved category, and thereupon the Councillor shall be deemed to have vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of such Certificate to be invalid and cancellation of the same by the said Committee or the Competent Authority."

As far as this section is concerned, it has been brought into the BMC Act by way of an amendment to give effect to the provision of Section 10(4) of the Caste Certificate Act which is also to the similar effect and which reads as follows :-

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, Co-operative Society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special backward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively."

This sub-section (4) has been held to be valid and interpreted by the Full Bench in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Full Bench has observed in Para-12A of its judgment with regard to section as follows :-

"If his nomination paper is accepted on the basis of caste certificate issued by the competent authority and as the caste certificate itself is valid subject to the grant of validity certificate, obviously acceptance of his nomination paper as valid will also be subject to the grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, once the scrutiny committee refuses to issue a validity certificate the nomination cannot survive and if the nomination cannot survive, election cannot survive. Therefore, cancellation of the election of such a candidate is a natural consequence of his caste certificate being found invalid."

Thus, the effect of the invalidation of the caste certificate has been laid down by the Full Bench, namely, that the person concerned shall be deemed to have vacated his office and the said section has been given its full force by the Full Bench. Thus, it is clear that once the order is passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste on the ground of making a false claim or a declaration, the seats shall be deemed to have been vacated. The submission of Mr. Joshi, as far as this aspect is concerned, is supported by the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench.

12. It is also material to note that a finality has been provided to the order of the Scrutiny Committee under Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act and the only way to challenge the same is by way of filing a writ petition in the High Court. The Petitioner has undoubtedly not done that and, therefore, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is said to have attained the finality. The submission of Mr. Joshi in that behalf is a correct one.

13. The point which remains to be considered is with respect to the role of Respondent No.1-Additional Municipal Commissioner. The submission of Mr. Acharya is that when the order of the Scrutiny Committee is received by the Municipal Commissioner, he is expected to scrutinise it and to find out as to whether the caste certificate has been invalidated on the ground of making a false claim to the particular caste or filing a false declaration. In his submission, it is only when the Scrutiny Committee gives a decision that the Petitioner had made a false claim or a false declaration and holds that the certificate is vitiated, that the deeming fiction will come into force and not otherwise.

14. Now, as far as this submission of Mr. Acharya is concerned, the question as to what constitutes a false claim came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Parasnath Goswami Vs. The Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certificates & Ors. reported in 2003(2) ALL MR 409. That was a case concerning the election to a Municipal Corporation governed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. The provisions of that Act were also amended to bring them in tune with the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and therein also, a similar provision came to be incorporated by incorporating Sections 1B and 1C in Section 10 of that Act. The provision of Section 10(1)(c) of that Act is similar to section 16(1C)(a) which has been invoked in the present case by Respondent No.1-Additional Municipal Commissioner. In Para-15 of that judgment, the Division Bench referred to the question of interpretation of the concept of false claim or declaration. The Division Bench referred to the Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition to examine the concept of a false claim. The Black's Law Dictionary defines the expression "false" as something which is untrue or deceitful. The definition goes on to add that what is false can be so by intent, by accident or by mistake. The Division Bench further referred to P. Ramanatha Aiyer's Law Lexicon (1997 edition page 704) wherein the expression "false" has been explained as being opposite of being correct or true and it is stated that the term does not necessarily involve turpitude of mind. The Court referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in AIR 1980 SC 346 and quoted the relevant paragraph which states that it is possible that even where the incorrectness of the return is claimed, it may be liable to be branded as a false return.

15. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pressed into service certain observations in Para-16 of that judgment which read as follows :-

"The legislature therefore advisedly did not regard the mere cancellation and invalidation of the caste certificate as a ground for disqualification but mandated that a disqualification will ensue where the invalidation and cancellation is on the ground set out by the legislature, namely that the certificate is based on a false claim or declaration by a person claiming to belong to a reserved category."

Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that these observations have to be seen on the background of the definition of something which is false as stated in Para-15 of that judgment. That apart, he pointed out that in Para-25 of that judgment, the Division Bench has stated that the letter of the Municipal Commissioner is only a formal communication. The disqualification under Section 10(1C) is attracted once the Scrutiny Committee has declared the caste certificate of the Councillor to be invalid and has cancelled the same on the ground of the certificate having been based on a false claim or declaration. Mr. Joshi drew our attention to the form filled up by the Petitioner while contesting the election. The Petitioner had enclosed with the form his caste certificate and the certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. It is undoubtedly true that the Petitioner had applied to contest to a Backward class seat and his claim to the Backward Class seat was based on the caste certificate and the validity certificate. He pointed out that, admittedly, those certificates had been invalidated. The consequence of the invalidation has to be seen as provided under the Act. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be read as holding that the Petitioner belongs to the Hindu Ahir Caste, which falls under the category of Nomadic Tribe. Every candidate contesting the election to a reserved seat has to have a caste certificate as belonging to the particular reserved category and that certificate has to be validated by the Scrutiny Committee. In the instant case, a particular certificate, which was enclosed with the Application Form, has been invalidated. Subsequent to the impugned order, the Petitioner has applied for another caste certificate that he belonged to a Nomadic Tribe. The fact remains that such a certificate has not been issued as yet and in any case, the certificate, which was tendered when the election was contested, has been vitiated. Once that certificate is vitiated, the election will also stand vitiated, as held by the Full Bench in the case of Sujit V. Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).

16. Mr. Joshi submitted that the role of the Municipal Commissioner was a Ministerial role. The Commissioner cannot be expected to go behind the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The phrase "false claim" will have to be read widely to include even a claim which is so made by mistake or which may not involve the turpitude of mind as per two dictionaries quoted in Para-15 of Mohan P. Goswami's case (supra). In any case, the declaration given by the Petitioner at the time when he filled up his Form, becomes false since the certificate has now been vitiated. Mr.Joshi lastly submitted that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee has been given a finality. Once it issues the order, the Municipal Commissioner is expected to implement it and do nothing more. If he starts scrutinising the order, he will be sitting in Appeal against a decision of the Scrutiny Committee, which power is given only to the High Court under Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The Municipal Commissioner cannot exercise that power.

17. In connection with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Joshi, we will have to note that, in the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, the Petitioner was given an incorrect certificate that he belonged to O.B.C. when the caste "Ahir" was no longer in the O.B.C. category but was a Nomadic Tribe. It was undoubtedly a mistake on the part of the office of the Collector in not updating the computer and not issuing the correct certificate. However, what is important is that the right to contest the election is a legal right and has to be exercised by fulfilling the requirements which are expected to be fulfilled. These requirements are expected to be implemented strictly and that has been so held in a catena of judgments. If the requirement is not fulfilled, the election automatically gets vitiated. As far as the role of the Municipal Commissioner is concerned, he is only in the position of implementing Authority.

18. In the case of Smith Vs. East Elloe Rural District Council reported in 1956(1) All England Reports 855 (at page 871), it was observed as follows :-

"An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. Prof. Wade has observed in Administrative Law, 6th edn. page 352, as follows :-

"The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances"."

The said judgment and the observations of the learned Author were quoted by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh reported in (1991)4 SCC page 1 with approval. In Hadkinson Vs. Hadkinson reported in (1952)2 All England Reports 567, the Court of Appeal referred to a judgment in Chuck Vs. Cremer reported in (1946)1 Co-op. Temp Cott 205 (342) to the effect that a party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors or their solicitors could themselves judge whether an order is null or valid. In the case of Nalla Senapati Sarkarai Mandariar Pallayakottai Vs. Shri. Ambal Mills reported in AIR 1966 Madras page 53, the Madras High Court observed that an order irregularly obtained cannot be treated as a nullity, but must be implicitly obeyed, until by a proper application, it is discharged. All these judgments were quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the case of Tayabbhai M. Bagasrwalla & anr. Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 1240.

19. Having noted the legal position as above, in our view, the first Respondent-Additional Municipal Commissioner had no option but to obey the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The operative part of the order is clear that the caste certificate and the validity certificate of the Petitioner were invalidated. If the Petitioner was aggrieved by that order or if he thought that the order, in fact, did not vitiate his claim to belong to the Nomadic Tribe of Hindu Ahir caste, his remedy was to challenge that order under Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act or to seek an appropriate direction from the High Court. To our repeated questions, Mr.Acharya has maintained that the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and he is not challenging the same in this Petition. The proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee were on a complaint filed against the Petitioner and it had led to the cancellation of his certificate. The Petitioner had a remedy and Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act, which in unmistakable terms, has provided that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee was final and could not be challenged before any Authority, except the High Court. What the Petitioner wants the Municipal Commissioner to do is to read that in spite of the operative part of the order (which has been issued as claimed by him for technical reasons) the Municipal Commissioner ought to have noted that the Petitioner continued to belong to the Hindu Ahir caste, which falls under the category of Nomadic Tribes. The 1st Respondent-Additional Municipal Commissioner could not have done any such thing in the absence of a certificate being produced by the Petitioner that he belonged to such a caste. No such certificate was produced to the 1st Respondent nor has the same been issued as yet. As stated earlier, the right to contest the election is a legal right and can be exercised only if the legal requirements in that behalf are strictly fulfilled.

20. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order dated 14th August, 2002 passed by the 1st Respondent-Additional Municipal Commissioner. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be not order as to costs.

21. Mr. Acharya appearing for the Petitioner applies for continuation of the interim stay for a period of eight weeks. The Counsel for the Respondents opposed this prayer but ultimately left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the interim stay running during the pendency of the Petition will continue to run for a further period of eight weeks.

Petition dismissed.