905SPKING.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 11625 of 2026

Vishakha Sharad Raut alias Vishakha Moreshwar Raut ...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Municipal Commissioner, BMC.

3. The District Caste Scrutiny Committee Palghar

4. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

5. Smt.Priya Sadanand Sarvankar Gurav ...Respondents

_________

Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shrishailya Deshmukh with V. P. Shelar,

for the Petitioner.

Mr. Diwankar Tayshete with Mr. D. R. Kawale, for Respondent No.2

Mr.Rajendra V. Pai, Senior Advocate with Aloukik R. Pai with Bina R. Pai with

Akshay R. Pai with Siddhi Bhosale with Avadhut V. Patil with Rishabh Shanbaug

with Rashmi Nikam with Omkar Kalundrekar i/b. Mr. Suryajeet Ravrane, for

Respondent No.5.

Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the State.

Mr. Mahesh Guhle (Election Dept. BMC) Officer present.

__________

CORAM:G. S. KULKARNI &

Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATE: 2 September 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. We have heard Mr. Surel Shah, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.

Shrishailya Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 – State of Maharashtra, Mr.

Pai, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.5, who is the private respondent

and the complainant who is immediately the next candidate defeated by the

petitioner in the election of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation held in January

2026.

Page 1 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

PRASHANT

VILAS

RANE

Digitally

signed by

PRASHANT

VILAS

RANE

Date:

2026.09.03

20:40:08

+0530

905SPKING.DOC

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the

communication(s) dated 25 August 2026 addressed by respondent No.2 –

Municipal Commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (for short

‘the Municipal Commissioner’) whereby invoking the provisions of Section

16(1C)(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), the

Commissioner has informed the petitioner that, as the caste certificate dated 19

December 2025 issued to the petitioner has been invalidated by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, Palghar by its order dated 20 August 2026, the petitioner’s

election as a Councillor from Ward No.191 has stood automatically cancelled. On

the even date, another communication was addressed by the Municipal

Commissioner to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,

Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, informing him of the

invalidation of the petitioner’s caste certificate as per the orders of the Caste

Scrutiny Committee dated 20 August 2026 and that as per the provisions of

Section 16(1C)(a) read with Section 16(1C)(b) of the MMC Act, an appropriate

action would be required to be taken by the State Government by issuing a

notification in the Official Gazette, to the effect that, from the date of the

invalidation of the petitioner’s caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

(i.e. from 20 August 2026) for a period of six years, the petitioner would not be

eligible to contest the elections. The legality of the said communication(s) of the

Municipal Commissioner dated 25 August 2026 falls for determination in the

present proceedings.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. There is no dispute in regard to

Page 2 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

elections of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation held in the month of January

2026, in which, the petitioner participated from the constituency reserved for the

candidate belonging to the Other Backward Class (OBC Woman), being Ward

No.191.

4. As the petitioner contested the elections from the reserved constituency, as

per the provisions of Section 5B of the MMC Act, a person contesting election on

a reserved seat is required to submit a caste certificate and a validity certificate,

and in the event an application is made prior to the election, the said certificate

would be required to be obtained within a period of six months and to that effect

an undertaking is required to be given by the candidate. Section 5B of the MMC

Act is required to be noted which reads thus:

5B. Person contesting election for reserved seat to submit Caste Certificate

and Validity Certificate. - Every person desirous of contesting election to a

seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may

be, Backward class of citizens, shall be required to submit, alongwith the

nomination paper, Caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority and

the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with

the provisions of 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.

1

[

Provided that, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for the

verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination

papers, but who has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing

of the nomination papers shall submit, alongwith the nomination papers,-

(i) a true copy of the application submitted by him to the Scrutiny Committee

for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof of having made such

application to the Scrutiny Committee; and

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the

Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the date on which he

is declared elected:

Provided further that, if such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate

within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected,

his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he

1 Amended by Maharashtra Act No 49/2025

Page 3 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

shall be disqualified for being a Councillor.]

5. Considering the requirement of the said provision, the petitioner had made

an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Palghar, who had granted a caste

certificate dated 19 December 2025, to the petitioner, certifying that the

petitioner belongs to “Kunbi Caste”, which falls in the Other Backward Class

category at Sr.No.83. The petitioner also made an application to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, Palghar, for validation of the caste certificate. However, on

the date of the declaration of the result of the election on 16 January 2026 when

the petitioner was declared to be elected, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was yet to

pass its order.

6. Be that as it may, the Caste Scrutiny Committee (respondent No.3),

adjudicated the caste claim of the petitioner, also considering the objections /

complaints as made by respondent No.5, and had passed a final order on the

petitioner’s application being order dated 20 August 2026, by which, the

petitioner’s caste certificate stands invalidated. The controversy in the present

petition has arisen as a consequence of the Caste Scrutiny Committee passing

such order invalidating the caste certificate.

7. In such context, at the outset, we may observe that 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 (for short

‘the 2000 Act’), contains substantive provisions inter alia in regard to

constitution of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the proceedings before the

Page 4 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Committee and the provisions incidental thereto. The 2000 Act was recently

amended by the Maharashtra Act No.XXXVIII of 2026 whereby relevant to the

context in hand, the provisions of Section 6B providing for appeal against the

orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee came to be incorporated. Also some

other provisions including Section 10 of the 2000 Act providing for benefits

secured on the basis of false caste certificate to be withdrawn was amended, to

which we shall advert a little later. The said amending Act was brought into force

with effect from 22 July 2026.

8. Section 6B of the 2000 Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order

of the Scrutiny Committee passed under Sections 6, 6A or 7 may, within ninety

days from the date of receipt of such order, file an appeal before the Appellate

Authority, as specified by the Government, by a notification in the Official

Gazette, and the Appellate Authority shall within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of an appeal and after giving the appellant an opportunity of

being heard, pass such orders. It further provides that the order passed by the

Appellate Authority under this section 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. It is not in dispute that the State Government has

constituted the Appellate Authority and the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeals

under Section 6B of the 2000 Act is conferred on the Divisional Commissioner.

9. Also by the said Amending Act, an amendment was incorporated under

Section 10 of the 2000 Act. Section 10 provides for “benefits secured on the basis

of a false caste certificate be withdrawn”. Sub-section (5) was inserted by the

Page 5 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Amending Act inter alia providing that after the Caste Certificate has been

cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny Committee, the concerned Appointing

Authority, Local Authority, Government, Educational Institution, Statutory Body

or Agency shall take an action for withdrawal of benefits given to such person. It

makes provisions that such action would be required to be taken within thirty

days from the date of order of the Appellate Authority if appeal is filed and it is

rejected by the Appellate Authority; and within thirty days from the lapse of

appeal period specified in sub-section (1) of section 6B, if appeal is not filed. It

would be imperative to note the amended provisions which read thus:-

Section 6B. Appeal against order of Scrutiny Committee: (1) Any person

aggrieved by an order of the Scrutiny Committee under section 6, 6A or 7

may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of such order, file an appeal

before the Appellate Authority, as specified by the Government, by

notification in the Official Gazette.

(2) The Appellate Authority shall within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of an appeal and after giving the appellant an opportunity of

being heard pass such orders as it deems fit.

(3) The order passed by the Appellate Authority under this section 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.

Section 10 Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate to be

withdrawn.

2

[1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled castes,

Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,

Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures admission in

any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or

Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in

any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government

or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post

reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste

Certificate / fake Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste

Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the

concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the

said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by

virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be

withdrawn forthwith.

(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency

by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be

2 Amended by Amendment Act No. XXXVIII of 2026

Page 6 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

recovered from such person as an arrear of land revenue.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in

force, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by

such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the

basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be fake or false

shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the

Scrutiny Committee.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in

force, a person shall be disqualified for being a 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 fake

Caste Certificate or false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or

Class on such fake Caste Certificate or 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.

(5) After Caste Certificate has been cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny

Committee, the concerned Appointing Authority, Local Authority,

Government, Educational Institution, Statutory Body or Agency shall take

action for withdrawal of benefits given to such person,—

(a) within thirty days from the date of order of the Appellate Authority if

appeal is filed, and it is rejected by the Appellate Authority;

(b) within thirty days from the lapse of appeal period specified in sub-section

(1) of section 6B, if appeal is not filed. ];

(emphasis supplied)

10. Having noted the aforesaid provisions, we may observe that in the present

case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has taken a decision by an order dated 20

August 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for validity of the Caste Certificate.

Admittedly, such order has been passed after the provisions of the Amended Act

(Maharashtra Act XXXVIII of 2026.) were brought into force as noted by us

hereinabove. Even in the order dated 20 August 2026 passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 4 of the operative part of the order, the

provisions of Section 6B are recognised when it has been stated that an appeal

against the said order would be available to the petitioner under Section 6B of the

2000 Act, to be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of the said order

Page 7 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

before Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

11. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner has, accordingly, approached

the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. Such

appeal was filed by the petitioner along with the stay application on 31 August

2026. A copy of the appeal memo alongwith the stay application are annexed to

the Writ Petition’s paperbook.

12. On perusal of the prayers as made in the stay application, it is seen that the

petitioner has prayed for stay of the order dated 20 August 2026 passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim, under the

certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, of the petitioner’s belonging to

the Other Backward Class (OBC). We also find that there is a specific prayer

made in the Stay/Interim Application, filed by the petitioner in the said appeal,

that the communication(s) as impugned in the present petition, issued by the

Municipal Commissioner dated 25 August 2026 be also stayed. The prayers as

made by the petitioner in the Interim Application are required to be noted, which

reads thus:

“a) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal this Hon'ble

Authority be pleased to grant an ex-parte ad-interim and interim stay to the

execution, operation and effect of the Impugned Order No.

जा.क्र.�ज.जा.प्र.प.स.पालघर/�Palghar;

b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal this Hon'ble

Authority be pleased to stay the execution, operation, and effect of the

consequential Order No. MGC/F/1877 dated 25.08.2026 passed by the

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, and direct the immediate

reinstatement of the Applicant as Corporator for Ward No. 191;

c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal this Hon'ble

Authority be pleased to stay the execution, operation, and effect of the

consequential intimation letter No. MGC/F/1877 dated 25.08.2026 sent to

the Additional Chief Secretary - 2, Urban Development Department

regarding the 6-year disqualification of the Applicant;

Page 8 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

d) Restrain the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and

Respondent No. 2 from taking any coercive steps, initiating disqualification

proceedings against the Applicant under Section 1 of the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act, 1888, or declaring a vacancy for Ward No. 191, in strict

compliance with the absolute statutory embargo mandated under Section

10(5) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate (Amendment) Act, 2026;

(emphasis added)

13. Admittedly, such appeal and stay application are pending consideration of

the Appellate Authority. It is in these circumstances on the very same day (31

August 2026) when the petitioner filed the said appeal before the appellate

authority along with the stay application, the present petition appears to have

been filed praying for substantive reliefs in regard to the communication dated 25

August 2026 addressed by the Municipal Commissioner. The prayers as made in

the present petition are required to be noted which read thus:-

a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Writ Petition with costs.

b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the

nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling

for the records and proceedings and, after examining the legality and

propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order No.

MGC/F/1877 dated 25.08.2026 at Exhibit D passed by Respondent No. 2;

c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the

nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, to

quash and set aside the consequential intimation letter/communication

dated 25.08.2026 at Exhibit E addressed by Respondent No. 2 to

Respondent No. 1 recommending the 6-year electoral disqualification of the

Petitioner and the consequent gazette notification if any;

d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus. or a writ in

the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to forthwith reinstate

the Petitioner as the elected Corporator for Ward No. 191 of the

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, restoring all consequential statutory

benefits, privileges, and duties and also further till a period of 30 days from

the date of order in Appeal if the Appeal is rejected by the Appellate

Authority;

e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble

Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation, and effect of the

Impugned Order No. MGC/F/1877 dated 25.08.2026 at Exhibit - D passed

by Respondent No. 2;

Page 9 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble

Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation, and effect of the

intimation letter dated 25.08.2026 at Exhibit - E, and explicitly restrain

Respondent No. 1 from publishing any Official Gazette notification

disqualifying the Petitioner for six years;

g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble

Court be pleased to restrain Respondent No. 2 from taking any coercive

steps, initiating disqualification proceedings, or declaring a vacancy for Ward

No. 191, in strict compliance with the absolute statutory embargo mandated

under Section 10(5) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate (Amendment) Act,

2026;

h) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition and the Appeal

this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay to the execution, operation and

effect of the Impugned Order No. जा.क्र.�ज.जा.प्र.प.स. पालघर/�वडणूक

प्रकरण/ क्र. २६२/ २०२६/ २०२६- २७/ १३४५dated 20.08.2026 at Exhibit A

passed by Respondent No. 3, District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Palghar;

i) Grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (e), (f), (g), and (h)

above;

j) Pass any such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of

the case may require, and as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to meet

the ends of justice.

(emphasis supplied)

14. We find that in prayer clause (d) (supra), the petitioner has categorically

prayed that the petitioner be forthwith reinstated as the elected Corporator.

15. Mr. Surel Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the impugned communication(s) dated 25 August 2026 issued by

the Municipal Commissioner to the petitioner, as also, addressed to the State

Government in purported invocation of Section 16(1C)(a) and (b) of the MMC

Act, is arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as such communication does not take into

consideration the substantive right of an appeal as provided to the petitioner by

virtue of Section 6B of the said 2000 Act, as incorporated by the Maharashtra

Amendment Act XXXVIII of 2026. It is submitted that coupled with the

provisions of Section 6B of the 2000 Act, also a substantive provision has been

Page 10 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

incorporated in Section 10 by incorporating sub-section (5)(a) & (b) which

specifically dealing in regard to an action to be taken of withdrawal of the

benefits, in the event the Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelled and confiscated the

caste certificate. It is submitted that such action would be required to be taken

only in accordance with clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) and not otherwise.

In such context Mr. Shah has drawn our attention to the operative orders which

are passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the

petitioner, to contend that the caste certificate dated 19 December 2025, issued in

favour of the petitioner has not been invalidated on the ground that a fraud is

practised by the petitioner in obtaining the Caste Certificate, but it has been

invalidated on the ground that the Competent Authority namely Sub Divisional

Officer (SDO) who had issued the caste certificate dated 19 December 2025 in

favour of the petitioner, was not the Competent Authority, as the relatives of the

petitioner were not the residents within the jurisdiction of the Competent

Authority, so as to confer jurisdiction with the SDO to issue the caste certificate.

The operative part of the orders dated 20 August 2026 passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee are required to be noted which reads thus:-

“(Official Translation )

ORDER

1. The Caste Certificate bearing No.41636350840, dated

19.12.2025, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Palghar, to the applicant, is hereby cancelled, as it has been proved

that the said Authority is not competent to issue the said certificate. The

Applicant is hereby directed to apply, along with the necessary proofs, to the

Competent Authority within whose jurisdiction the Applicant's paternal

family was residing as on the deemed date i.e. before the said Competent

Authority (Mumbai City).

2. On the basis of the affidavit and other documents produced by the

Applicant along with the application submitted for obtaining a Kunbi Caste

Validity Certificate, the Applicant has failed to establish the blood relationship

between the Applicant and the holders of the Kunbi Caste Validity

Page 11 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Certificates.

3. The Applicant should deposit the Caste Certificate bearing No.

41636350840 dated 19.12.2025, issued to the Applicant by the Sub-

Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palghar with the office of

the Committee, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the present order.

4. An appeal against the present order may be preferred before the

Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, under Section 6-B of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation

of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, within ninety

days from the date of receipt of the said order.

This order has been prepared by Shri Pandurang Wable, the Member -

Secretary of the Committee and the Chairperson and the Members of the

Committee concur with the same.

Place : Palghar

Date : 20.08.2026

Sd/-

(Pandurang Wable)

Copy to :

1) Smt. Vishakha Moreshwar Rawool.

2) Smt. (Illegible) Sadanand Sarawankar

3) Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Palghar.

sd/-

Issued by

Pandurang Wable,

Member Secretary”

16. Mr. Shah would submit that necessarily the provisions of sub-section 5(b)

of Section 10 would become applicable in the facts of the present case, hence,

only after the period of 30 days from the lapse of the appeal period, as specified in

sub-clause (b) of Section 6B expires, only then the local authority / municipal

corporation can take an action for withdrawal of the benefits given to such person.

It is therefore Mr. Shah’s submission that the impugned communication(s) dated

25 August 2026 (Exhibit D and Exhibit E to the petition) are in the teeth of the

provisions of sub-section 5(b) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act. It is hence, his

submission that considering the said provisions, the Municipal Commissioner had

Page 12 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

no jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication(s) before expiry of the

specific period as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (5) which, according to Mr.

Shah, admittedly had not expired, inasmuch as the Caste Scrutiny Committee had

passed the order invalidating the petitioner’s caste certificate on 20 August 2026.

Mr. Shah submits that by virtue of provisions of Section 6B (supra) the period of

90 days was available to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate

Authority, which in fact was filed earlier (on 31 August 2026) before the expiry of

such period, hence, once such appeal was filed along with the stay application,

the Municipal Commissioner was required to adhere to the mandate of the

provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 10, before the impugned

communication(s) were issued. It is, therefore, his submission that the impugned

order is required to be quashed and set aside.

17. Even on merits of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mr.

Shah would submit that this is not the case where any findings are recorded by the

Committee that the Caste Certificate was fraudulently obtained by the petitioner,

and in the absence of any such observations made in the said order, certainly it

was not open to the Municipal Commissioner to assume any jurisdiction under

the provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) of the MMC Act, on an assumed

disqualification. Mr. Shah’s contention is that the recourse to the provision of

Section 16(1C)(a) of the MMC Act was certainly not available to be exercised by

the Municipal Commissioner by issuance of the impugned communication(s)

dated 25 August 2026. It is his submission that the provisions of Section 6B read

with Section 10(5) are procedural provisions and would have retrospective

Page 13 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

operation, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neena Aneja

& Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.

3

18. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Municipal Commissioner has

supported the impugned order passed by the Municipal Corporation. He would

submit that the impugned communication has been validly issued and more

particularly considering the mandate of Section 16(1C)(a) and (b) of the MMC

Act, which according to him, would bring about a legal effect of the petitioner

being deemed to have been disqualified on invalidation of the petitioner’s caste

certificate, by virtue of the order dated 20 August 2026 passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee. He has referred to the provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) as

also the provisions of Section 5B of the MMC Act (supra) to support his

contentions. Considering such provisions, it is submitted that the petitioner’s

contention that the Municipal Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the

impugned communication(s), is not tenable. He submits that in any event, the

petitioner cannot contend that no legal consequence(s) have occurred, qua the

petitioner’s position as an elected Corporator by virtue of the orders passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 20 August 2026, invalidating the petitioner’s

caste certificate.

19. Mr. Pai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 has

opposed this petition by referring to the provisions of the 2000 Act as also the

provisions of the MMC Act. Mr. Pai would submit that operation of the

provisions of Section 10 of the 2000 Act, insofar as the benefits secured on the

basis of the false certificate stand withdrawn, are clear. He has referred to the

3 2022(2) SCC 161

Page 14 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

provisions of sub-section (4) to submit that the provisions begin with a non-

obstante

clause, providing for an overriding effect, on any law for the time being

in force, to provide that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any

statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, (as in the

present case) etc., on a 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 accordingly, 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. It is

submitted that sub-section (4) in no manner has undergone any amendment

although sub-section (5) has been incorporated by the Maharashtra Amendment

Act No.XXXVIII of 2026 by incorporating the provision of sub-section (5) which

provides in regard to the legal effect which would be brought about by

cancellation and confiscation of the Caste Certificate under the orders of the

Caste Scrutiny Committee, on the benefits of such person being withdrawn as

provided in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (5). It is his submission that such

provision is required to be considered to be independent which does not affect the

operation of the provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) of the MMC Act. It is hence,

submitted that the legal effect as brought about by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

passing an order invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner was of

automatic deemed disqualification. Hence, the petitioner would not be correct in

Page 15 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

her contention that the Municipal Commissioner had no jurisdiction and/or the

impugned communication in any manner is illegal or arbitrary. In supporting his

submission, Mr. Pai has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this

Court in Sujit Vasant Patil vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

4

wherein the Full

Bench has held that once the scrutiny committee refuses to issue a validity

certificate the nomination cannot survive and if the nomination cannot survive,

election cannot survive, and hence, cancellation of the election of such a

candidate is a natural consequence of his caste certificate being found invalid. Mr.

Pai has also placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in Mr. Ashutosh s/o Shivajirao Amberao vs. State of Maharashtra

5

, wherein

the Division Bench in considering the provisions of Section 6B of the 2000 Act

has held that the provision is prospective in operation referring to the principles

of law. It is, therefore, Mr. Pai’s contention that the impugned orders are required

to be held to be legal and valid.

Analysis

20. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the

record as also the submissions as urged before us, the question which would fall

for our determination is ‘whether the Municipal Commissioner in issuing the

impugned communication(s) dated 25 August 2026 has acted in accordance with

law and/or had jurisdiction to issue such communication(s).’

21. At the outset, we find that the impugned communication has been issued

4 2004(3)MHLJ1109

5 Writ Petition No.10108 of 2026 decision dt. 13/08/2026.(Aurangabad Bench)

Page 16 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

by the Municipal Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) &

(b) of the MMC Act, which

inter alia provides for “Disqualifications for being a

Councillor

”. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that “a person shall be disqualified

for being elected and for being a councilor if such person inter alia has been so

disqualified by or under any law, for the time being in force for the purpose of

elections to the Legislature of the State

; and secondly, he shall also be so

disqualified under any law made by the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra

.

The provision which is specifically invoked is the provision of sub-section (1C)(a)

& (b) of Section 16, which provides that a Councillor who has been elected to a

reserved seat, who stands disqualified, consequent upon the concerned Scrutiny

Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 6 of the 2000 Act

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 belong 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 being cancelled by the Scrutiny

Committee or by the competent authority. Section 16(1) and the relevant

provision being sub-section (1C)(a) and (b) of the MMC Act are required to be

noted, which reads thus:

16.Disqualifications for being a councillor

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected and for being a

councillor if such person -

(a-1) has been disqualified by or under any law -

(i) for the time being in force for the purpose of elections

to the Legislature of the State.

Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground

that he is less than twenty-five years fo age, if he has attained

Page 17 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

the age of twenty one years.

(ii) made by teh Legislature of the State of Maharashtra.

.....…

(1C) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1B), a

Councillor who has been elected to a reserved seat as mentioned in

subsection (1B), shall be disqualified for being such Councillor

consequent upon the concerned Scrutiny Committee constituted

under subsection (1) of section 6 of 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 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 Scrutiny Committee or by the competent

authority.

(b) On any person having been disqualified for being a Councillor

and consequently, his seat as such Councillor having become vacant

under clause (a), the State Government shall, by notification in the

Official Gazette, disqualify such person for being elected or being a

Councillor for a period of six years from the date of such order.”

22. Thus, sub-section(1C)(a) of Section 16 of the MMC Act in the context of

Caste Scrutiny Committee declaring the Caste Certificate of the Councillor to be

invalid, stipulates a deeming effect, namely, that in such eventuality, the

Councillor shall be deemed to have vacated his office on and from the date of

declaration of the Caste Certificate as invalid and cancelled by the Scrutiny

Committee. Sub-section (1C)(b) provides that on any person having been

disqualified as a Councillor, consequently, his seat as Councillor having become

vacant as a consequence of clause (a) of sub-section (1C), the State Government,

shall by notification in the Official Gazette, disqualify such person for being

elected or being a Councillor for a period of six years from the date of such order.

Page 18 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Thus, clause (b) of sub-section (1C) is a consequence of what is provided for in

clause (a) of sub-section (1C). It is this provision which has been invoked by the

Municipal Commissioner while issuing the impugned communication(s).

23. The contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner is, however, to the

effect that the provisions of sub-section (1C) (a) and (b) of Section 16 of the

MMC Act were not available to be invoked by the Municipal Commissioner

considering the amendment as incorporated to the 2000 Act by Maharashtra Act

No. XXXVIII of 2026 by incorporating the provisions of Section 6B providing

for an “Appeal against the order of the Scrutiny Committee”, with an amendment

as brought about in Section 10 by incorporating sub-section (5) inter-alia

providing for actions which can be taken in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-

section (5) providing the prescribed limitation for action to be taken for

withdrawal of the benefits given to any persons whose Caste Certificate has been

invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thus, the contention is that once

the provisions of Section 6B of the 2000 Act, providing for an appeal against the

order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee were available, to the Petitioner as

a necessary corollary, the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the 2000

Act, incorporated by the said Amendment Act were required to be adhered by the

Municipal Commissioner, and it is only after taking into consideration such

provisions, recourse to the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the 2000 Act and/or the

provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) and (b) could have been taken and not otherwise.

24. Such contention as urged by Mr. Shah, at the first blush, appears to be

attractive, however, a deeper scrutiny of the said provisions would not permit us

Page 19 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

to accept such contention of Mr. Shah. The following discussions would throw

light on the legal consequences as may be brought about.

25. Section 10 of the 2000 Act provides for “Benefits secured on the basis of

false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn”. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 begins with

a non-obstante clause providing that ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in any

law for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member

of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, co-

operative society or any statutory body

inter alia on reserved seat reserved for any

of 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 by

virtue of such cancellation 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. We find that by incorporating

sub-section (5) by the Amendment Act XXXVIII of 2026 (with effect from 22

July, 2026), the Legislature has not in any manner disturbed the provisions of

sub-section (4) and more particularly, when it ordains an overriding effect in

respect to any other law for the time being in force, so as to bring about a situation

that election of such person “shall be deemed” to have been terminated

retrospectively, i.e., on the date on which the person contested the election. In the

context of what is provided by sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act if the

provisions of sub-section (5) are seen, such deeming effect which is brought about

Page 20 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

by sub-section (4) that the election of such person “shall be deemed” to have been

terminated retrospectively, have remained undisturbed/untouched inasmuch as

sub-section (5) of Section 10 speaks about the action for withdrawal of the

benefits given to such person and it is only in the context of such benefits, clauses

(a) and (b) of sub-section (5) are required to be read and not otherwise, so as to

obliterate the deemed disqualification.

26. Once such is the effect as brought about by the provisions of sub-section

(4) of Section 10, which remains unaffected by the amendment brought about by

incorporation of sub-section (5)(a) and (b), the consequence is not too far to be

seen, namely, that in the present case the petitioner’s caste certificate having been

declared to be invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 20 August, 2026,

necessarily the petitioner’s election is “deemed to have” been terminated

retrospectively. Merely because, clause (b) of sub-section (5) provides for a

limitation of thirty days from the lapse of the appeal period for withdrawal of the

“benefits”, in our opinion, the said provision would not dilute or extinguish or

affect, in any manner, the deeming effect as brought about by the provisions of

sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act.

27. Having considered the provisions of the 2000 Act, we now advert on the

provisions of Section 16 of the MMC Act, which have been invoked by the

Municipal Commissioner in addressing the impugned communication(s).

28. As noted herein above, Section 16 is an independent provision under the

MMC Act providing for ‘disqualification for being a Councilor’. Sub-section (1C)

(a) of Section 16

6

of the MMC Act is the relevant provision, as invoked by the

6 Sub-Sections (1B) & (1C) were re-inserted by Mah. 43 of 2015, dt. 31-12-2015

Page 21 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Municipal Commissioner. The purport of which appears to us is not different

from what has been provided for under Section 10 (4) of the 2000 Act. Sub-

section (1C)(a) categorically provides that a Councilor who has been elected to a

reserved seat as mentioned in sub-section (1B) shall be disqualified for being a

Councilor consequent upon the concerned Scrutiny Committee constituted

under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the 2000 Act, declaring the Caste Certificate

of such Councilor to be invalid and canceling the same, on the ground of the

same being based on a false claim or declaration made by such a person claiming

to belong to the reserved category, and thereupon the Councilor shall be ‘deemed’

to have vacated his office on and from the date of declaration of such Certificate

to be invalid and canceled by the said Scrutiny Committee or by the competent

authority. Thus, this is the second “deeming provision” when it comes to the

election in addition to what has been provided under Sub section (4) of section 10

of the 2000 Act. Thus by virtue of Section 16 of the MMC Act, the Councilor is

deemed to have vacated his office from the date of declaration of the Caste

Certificate to be declared invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. As noted

herein above, clause (b) of Section 16 (1C) is consequential, providing that the

State Government would be required to issue appropriate notification in the

Official Gazette disqualifying such person for being elected or being a Councilor

for a period of six years from the date of such order.

29. If these are the provisions which are invoked by the Municipal Commissioner

merely because there is a provision for an appeal under Section 6B of the 2000

Act (supra), for that matter sub-section 5 being incorporated in Section 10

Page 22 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

(supra), there is no gainsaying that sub-section (1C) (a)(b) of Section 16 would

cease to operate and/or the deeming effect which is provided for under sub-

section (1C)(a) of Section 16 would stand deferred in view of the provisions of

clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act. This is what is

sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the provision of Section

16 (1C) of the MMC Act cannot be invoked in the teeth of what has been

provided for in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 10. Such

contentions, on a plain reading of the aforesaid provision and for the reasons as

discussed herein above, are misconceived, hence, unacceptable. The legislature in

providing for an amendment of the 2000 Act, by incorporating sub-section (5) in

Section 10, certainly was conscious of the consequences of the two fold situations;

firstly, sub-section (4) of Section 10 providing for a deeming effect, of bringing

about a disqualification in the manner as provided, namely, that election of such

person, whose caste certificate has been invalidated, shall be deemed to have

terminated retrospectively; and secondly, sub-section (4) of Section 10 was a

provision having an overriding effect on any law for the time being in force. The

legislature was also not oblivious to the specific provisions of Section 16(1C) (a)

and (b) of the MMC Act, which contemplated a similar effect providing for

disqualification of an elected councilor in the event the caste certificate is

invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. No amendment was made to the MMC

Act to dilute and/or to take away the effect of what has been provided for in

Section 16(1C) (a) and (b). For such reasons, we are not inclined to accept the

case of the petitioner that the Municipal Commissioner had no authority to issue

Page 23 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

the impugned communications, which, in our opinion, clearly flows from the

provisions of Section 16(1C) (a) and (b) of the MMC Act.

30. Now coming to the next contention as urged by Mr. Shah, namely, that it

is clear from the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the Caste

Certificate has not been invalidated on the ground of the petitioner having

practiced fraud, but on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the competent

authority in issuing the Caste Certificate to the Petitioner, and hence, the

provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 10 as also the provisions of Section

16(1C) were not available to be invoked, in any manner whatsoever. Such

contention, in our opinion, cannot be accepted on a plain reading of the order

dated 20 August 2026 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has also examined the merits of the petitioner’s case, as

clearly seen from the discussion in paragraph 6.2.2 to 6.2.5 of the order passed by

the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Caste Certificate issued to the

Petitioner. Such observations are required to be read in the context of the

operative paragraph 2 of the said order (supra), which concludes that the

petitioner was unable to prove her case for grant of validity of her caste certificate,

on the basis of the affidavit and documents submitted by her. Thus, necessarily, it

is a case that the claim of the petitioner for grant of validity to the caste certificate

firstly cannot be proven hence, necessarily the Caste Certificate accordingly was

obtained on an incorrect claim of the Petitioner, or in other words, it was a “false

caste certificate” based on an incorrect claim. As in our clear opinion, once sub-

Page 24 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

section (4) of Section 10 uses the words ‘false

7

Caste Certificate’, it would mean

that the certificate, which was issued by the competent authority, was not a correct

certificate. Thus, once a Caste Certificate is declared as a false certificate, when

tested on materials, it would not be tenable for the petitioner to contend that

merely because the Caste Scrutiny Committee, failing to observe that the caste

certificate was obtained by exercise of fraudulent means, sub-section (4) of

Section 10 of the 2000 Act or Section 16(1C) of the MMC Act would not be

attracted. This would be erroneous reading of sub-section (4) of Section 10 and

Section 16 (1C) (a) and (b) of the MMC Act, as these provisions do not

incorporate the word ‘fraud’, when these provisions specifically uses the words

‘false’. In this view of the matter, the petitioner’s case of there being no fraud

employed by the petitioner in obtaining the caste certificate, would certainly not

assist the petitioner.

31. We now come to the next leg of Mr. Shah’s submission, that Section 6B

would be a procedural provision and hence, once the provision of appeal is

provided, the provision of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section 5 as incorporated in

Section 10 of the 2000 Act, would be required to be given some meaning, and

thus, necessarily the benefit of period of 30 days from the lapse of appeal period

specified in sub-section (1) of Section 6B, if the appeal is not filed, would enure

to the benefit of the petitioner, before withdrawal of any benefits given to the

7 “false, fals, a. falser, falsest. [L. falsus, feigned, spurious, deceptive, false, pp. of fallere, deceive.] Contrary to what is true or

correct; erroneous, mistaken, untrue, or incorrect; uttering or declaring what is untrue; deceitful, treacherous, or faithless; deceptive;

as, false appearances; not genuine; counterfeit or artificial; employed to deceive or mislead; mus. inaccurate in pitch; as, a false note;

biol. having a deceptive resemblance to something that properly bears the name; as, the false Solomon's-seal; substituted for or

supple- menting, esp. temporarily.-adv. In a false manner; incorrectly or wrongly; treacher- ously or faithlessly. -falsely, adv. false.-

ness, n.”

New Webster’s Dictionary, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 1981, Page No. 354

Page 25 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

petitioner. We are not persuaded to accept such submission for the reasons which

we have set out herein above. We have already observed that the deeming effect of

invalidity of the Caste Certificate i.e., the Caste Certificate of the petitioner being

declared to be false, the legal consequence is to the effect that the petitioner’s

election is rendered invalid by virtue of such order being passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee on 20 August, 2026, and now such invalidity in fact travels

to the date on which the petitioner filled the nomination form to contest the

election on the reserved seat.

32. We may observe that even assuming that Section 6B read with sub-section

(5) of Section 10 is procedural as noted hereinabove, it does not disturb the legal

effect of disqualification which has been incurred by the petitioner by virtue of

the provisions of Section 16(1C)(a) of the MMC Act read with Section 10(4) of

the 2000 Act. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the petitioner’s case

relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neena Aneja & Anr. (supra), as

there cannot be any doubt in regard to the proposition as canvassed on behalf of

the petitioner and as observed in paragraphs 72 and 83 of the said decision,

however, certainly in the facts of the present case, such proposition canvassed on

behalf of the petitioner is not attracted. Paragraphs 72 and 83 of the said decision

read thus:

72. In considering the myriad precedents that have interpreted the impact

of a change in forum on pending proceedings and retrospectivity—a clear

position of law has emerged : a change in forum lies in the realm of procedure.

Accordingly, in compliance with the tenets of statutory interpretation applicable

to procedural law, amendments on matters of procedure are retrospective, unless

a contrary intention emerges from the statute. … … ...

“

21. … no litigant has any vested right in the matter of procedural law

but where the question is of change of forum it ceases to be a question

of procedure only. The forum of appeal or proceedings is a vested right

Page 26 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

as opposed to pure procedure to be followed before a particular forum.

The right becomes vested when the proceedings are initiated in the

tribunal

.”

(emphasis supplied)

In taking this view, the two-Judge Bench did not consider binding decisions.

Dhadi Sahu [CIT v. Dhadi Sahu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 257] failed to consider

that the saving of pending proceedings in

Mohd. Idris [Mohd. Idris v. Sat

Narain

, (1966) 3 SCR 15 : AIR 1966 SC 1499] and Manujendra Dutt

[Manujendra Dutt v. Purnedu Prosad Roy Chowdhury, (1967) 1 SCR 475 : AIR

1967 SC 1419] was a saving of vested rights of the litigants that were being

impacted by the repealing Acts therein, and not because a right to forum is

accrued once proceedings have been initiated. Thereafter, a line of decisions

followed

Dhadi Sahu [CIT v. Dhadi Sahu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 257] , to hold

that a litigant has a crystallised right to a forum once proceedings have been

initiated. A litigant's vested rights (including the right to an appeal) prior to the

amendment or repeal are undoubtedly saved, in addition to substantive rights

envisaged under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. This protection does not

extend to pure matters of procedure. Repeals or amendments that effect changes

in forum would ordinarily affect pending proceedings, unless a contrary

intention appears from the repealing or amending statute.

83.Having stated the above position, we need to harmonise it with the

principle that the right to a forum is not an accrued right, as discussed in

Part C

o

f this judgment. Simply put, while Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act

protects the pending legal proceedings for the enforcement of an accrued right

from the effect of a repeal, this does not mean that the legal proceedings at a

particular forum are saved from the effects from the repeal. The question

whether the pending legal proceedings are required to be transferred to the

newly created forum by virtue of the repeal would still persist. As discussed, this

Court in

New India Assurance[New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra,

(1975) 2 SCC 840] and

Maria Cristina [Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v.

Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto, (1979) 1 SCC 92] has held that forum is a matter

pertaining to procedural law and therefore the litigant has to pursue the legal

proceedings at the forum created by the repealing Act,

unless a contrary

intention appears

. This principle would also apply to pending proceedings, as

observed in

Ramesh Kumar Soni [Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., (2013)

14 SCC 696 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 340],

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur [Hitendra

Vishnu Thakur

v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri)

1087] and

Sudhir G. Angur [Sudhir G. Angur v. M. Sanjeev, (2006) 1 SCC 141]

. In this backdrop, what is relevant to ascertain is whether a contrary intent to

the general rule of retrospectivity has been expressed under the 2019 Act to

continue the proceedings at the older forum.

33. In fact the aforesaid observations as made by the Supreme Court fortifies

our view of the petitioner having suffered a disqualification being not disturbed

by the said amended provisions of the 2000 Act.

34. The Supreme Court in the

Chairman and Managing Director, Food

Page 27 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors.

8

has taken a

review of the legal precedents in regard to the effect which would be brought

about once the Caste Certificate is invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The conclusions of the said decision are recorded in paragraph 69 of the said

decision, in which referring to the decisions in Madhuri Patil vs. Commr. Tribal

Development

9

, R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala

10

and Union of India vs.

Dattatray

11

, the Supreme Court has held that where a benefit is secured by an

individual on the basis, that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for

which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon

verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission

being rendered void or

non est. It was observed that withdrawal of benefits

secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false necessarily

brings about a consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim

and no issue of retrospectivity would arise. Considering such clear position in law,

we find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Pai in relying on the decision of the Full

Bench of this Court in

Sujit Vasant Patil (supra) wherein the Full bench has

categorically held, as to what are the consequences, which would be brought

about once the Scrutiny Committee refuses to issue a validity certificate to the

Caste Certificate to the candidates, that the nomination itself would not survive

and if the nomination would not survive, election cannot survive. It was held that

cancellation of the election of such a candidate is a natural consequence of his

8(2017) 8 SCC 670

9(1994) 6 SCC 241

10(2004) 2 SCC 105

11(2008) 4 SCC 612

Page 28 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

caste certificate being found to be invalid. The following observations of the Full

Bench are required to be noted, which reads thus:

“12-A.Thus, the scheme of the various Local Self-Government Act in relation

to the filing of the nomination papers and their scrutiny and the scheme of the

Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 appears to be that in case a person desires

to contest an election to a reserved seat, it is obligatory on his part to get a caste

certificate from the competent authority and then immediately apply to the

Scrutiny Committee to get a validity certificate. Therefore, normally as the

candidate is required to make an application to the scrutiny committee as soon

as he receives a caste certificate from the competent authority, with the result

that in many cases his application before the scrutiny committee for validity

certificate would be pending when his nomination paper is accepted on the

basis of the caste certificate. 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

35. We may also usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in

Kalpana Dilip Bahirat vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.

12

whereby the

provisions of Section 10(4) of 2000 Act fell for consideration of the Supreme

Court. In the said case, the appellant contested the elections of Pune Municipal

Corporation held in December 2011 to a seat reserved for Other Backward

Classes. The appellant had filed proof of her caste under a caste validity certificate

dated 3 July, 2008 issued by the Competent Authority. Subsequently, the Caste

Certificate on the basis of which the appellant had contested the election was

revealed to have never been issued and the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed an

order holding that the appellant had not submitted a genuine caste certificate and

as a consequence thereof, her election was declared to be

abinitio null and void.

12(2014) 15 SCC 654

Page 29 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

The elected seat has become vacant retrospectively. A challenge was mounted by

the appellant before this Court to the disqualification, which was not successful.

In these circumstances, the proceedings reached the Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court considering the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the

2000 Act observed that by virtue of such provisions, the consequence was that

the election of the person who contested election on a seat reserved for one of the

reserved categories, on a false caste certificate belonging to such caste, tribe or

class, shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. It was observed

that the deeming provision in sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act was a

statutory fiction which was given effect to and the Commissioner of the

Municipal Corporation had given effect to the deeming provision and thus acted

in accordance with law. The position is not different, insofar the present

proceedings are concerned. The relevant observations as made by the Supreme

Court are required to be noted, which reads thus:

9. We have perused sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act and we

find that it applies to admission to reserved seat in an educational institution

and to appointment to a reserved post in the Government, local authorities,

government corporations, government-aided institutions or cooperative

societies and will not be attracted to the facts of the case. Instead, the

consequences as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act will

follow. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 reads:

“10. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time

being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any

statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority,

cooperative society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified 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.”

The consequence is that the election of a person who has contested on a seat

Page 30 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

reserved for the aforementioned categories on false caste certificate as belonging

to such caste, tribe or class “shall be deemed to have been terminated

retrospectively”. The deeming provision in sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the

2000 Act is a statutory fiction which has to be given effect to and the

Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation has given effect to the deeming

provision and has thus acted in accordance with law.

10. Mr Mohta is right that in view of the provisions of Article 243-ZG of

the Constitution, the election of a person elected to the municipality can only

be called in question by an election petition presented to such authority and in

such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of

the State and Section 16 of the 1949 Act provides for the manner in which

election to any municipality can be called in question, but the opening words of

sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act, provide that "notwithstanding

anything contained in any law for the time being in force", which obviously will

also include Section 16 of the 1949 Act, the deeming provision in sub-section

(4) of Section 10 of the 2000 Act will have to be given effect to and will not

await the outcome of an election petition. We, therefore, maintain the order

passed by the High Court for the reasons indicated in this judgment.”

36. In any event as noted by us hereinabove, the petitioner is clearly aware

about the aforesaid legal position of a deemed disqualification having taken effect,

considering that the petitioner has categorically prayed in prayer clause (d)

(supra) that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondent to forthwith reinstate

the petitioner as elected corporator. Thus, implicit in such prayer is the clear

recognition by the petitioner that the petitioner has stood disqualified by

operation of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the 2000 Act read with Section

16(1C)(a) of the MMC Act. In the present circumstances, such reinstatement as

prayed in prayer clause (d) cannot be granted by this Court by issuance of writ of

mandamus.

37. In the light of the above discussion, we find that there is no illegality in the

impugned communication(s) issued by the Municipal Commissioner. The

petition lacks merits. It is accordingly rejected. No costs.

38. Needless to observe that our observations are confined to the adjudication

Page 31 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane

905SPKING.DOC

of the present proceedings. All contentions of the parties including that of the

petitioner in the pending appeal are expressly kept open. Mr. Shah requests that

the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for earlier

hearing of the proceedings. This liberty is available to the petitioner. Such request

be considered by the Appellate Authority.

(Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

(Order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes of the order dated 03/09/2026.)

Page 32 of 32

2 September 2026

P. V. Rane