Nutan Hanmant Sawant And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader And Ors

2026:BHC-KOL:3854-DB
wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5766 OF 2025
1. Mrs. Nutan Hamnat Sawant,
Aged about 41 years.
2. Mrs. Anjali Bharat Nikam,
Aged about 42 years.
3. Mrs. Chhaya Hanmant Tupe,
Aged about 56 years.
All Grampanchayat Members
Residing at Kshetra Mahuli,
Taluka Satara, District Satara. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Collector.
Satara, District Satara.
3. Grampanchayat Kshetra Mahuli,
Taluka Satara, District Satara.
4. Mr. Sachin Nagesh Jadahv. Adult.
5. Mr. Sanjay Dattraya Jadhav, Adult.
Nos. 4 and 5 residing at Kshetra Mahuli,
Taluka Satara, District Satara. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Pradeep S. Gole, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for respondents-State.
adn
1 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad with Mr. Ganesh Tikole, Advocate for respondents.
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae) (through VC) alongwith
Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Advocate
——————
Coram : Madhav J. Jamdar &
Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Reserved On : March 30, 2026.
Pronounced On : June 08, 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER P RAVIN S. PATIL , J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the
parties, the petition is taken up for final haring. Heard Mr. Pradeep S.
Gole, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for
respondents-State, Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad with Mr. Ganesh Tikole,
Advocate for respondents and Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Counsel (Amicus
Curiae) alongwith Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Counsel at length.
2. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 11th February
2025 passed by the Collector, Satara, whereby the petitioners, who were
elected as Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat, were held
disqualified for not submitting caste validity certificates within time
period as per provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
3. It would be relevant to record certain facts of the petition. The
petitioner No. 1 had filed a nomination paper for election to the post of
Sarpanch from Village Kshetra Mahuli under the Scheduled Caste
category. Petitioner No. 2 had submitted her nomination paper for
adn
2 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
election in Ward No. 2 for the post of Member of Village Kshetra Mahuli
under the Backward Class Citizen category (Female). Petitioner No. 3 had
submitted her nomination form for election in Ward No. 5 for the post of
Member of Village Kshetra Mahuli under the Scheduled Caste (Female)
category for the election of Grampanchayat for period 2022 to 2027.
4. The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act specifically provides under
Section 10-1A that persons who submits nomination paper from a
reserved category should possess a caste validity certificate or submit
proof of having applied for verification of caste certificate within a period
of twelve months. It is necessary for every candidate desirous of
contesting an election to a seat reserved for any reserved category is
required to submit along with the nomination papers a caste certificate
issued by the Competent Authority and a 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. If
such validity certificate is not available, then the candidate is required to
apply to the Scrutiny Committee before the date of filing nomination
papers and submit a true copy of such application along with an
undertaking that he shall submit the validity certificate within a period of
adn
3 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
twelve months from the date on which the election results are declared.
5. In the present case, admittedly petitioners, on the date of
submitting their nomination, were not possessing caste validity
certificate, therefore, in compliance with Section 10-1A of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, submitted undertakings that they
would submit validity certificates issued by the Scrutiny Committee
within a period of twelve months. Accordingly, their nomination papers
were accepted and they were permitted to contest the election.
th
6. On 20 December 2022, result of election were declared. Petitioner
No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch from the Scheduled Caste category,
whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were elected as Members from the
Scheduled Caste and Backward Class categories respectively.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
after verification of their caste claims, by order dated 12th July 2023
granted caste validity certificate in favour of petitioner No. 1 vide
Decision No. 6176. In the case of petitioner No. 2, caste validity
certificate was granted vide Decision No. 5783 dated 26th June 2023 and
in respect of petitioner No. 3, the caste validity certificate was issued vide
Decision No. 6965 dated 21st July 2023.
8. The petitioners further stated that by a common letter dated 2nd
August 2023 they have submitted the caste validity certificates to the
adn
4 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Tahsildar, Satara. However, being uneducated persons, they did not
obtain acknowledgment from the Tahsildar. As such, they are not
possessing documentary proof to show that caste validity certificates
were tendered in the office of Tahsildar.
9. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, taking undue
advantage of the apparent mistake on the part of the petitioners in not
obtaining acknowledgment, filed an application before the Collector
seeking disqualification of the petitioners for non-submission of caste
validity certificates within the prescribed period. The said application was
filed on 13th December 2024.
10. Respondent No. 2 – Collector, upon receipt of the complaint, issued
notices to the petitioners. In response thereto, the petitioners pointed out
that they had received caste validity certificates on or before 9th July
2024 and therefore they could not be disqualified merely on the ground
of non-submission of the same to the Tahsildar within the stipulated
period of twelve months. However, the Collector, considering the fact that
the period of twelve months expired on 9th July 2024 and by that time
the petitioners failed to submit their caste validity certificates as required
under Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act,
disqualified them as Members of the Gram Panchayat.
11. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the petitioners
adn
5 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
initially filed Writ Petition No. 5765 of 2025 before this Court. However,
during pendency of the said petition, the State Government, vide
Maharashtra Act No. XXXV of 2023 published in the Maharashtra
Government Gazette on 14th August 2023, the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for Certain
Elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis)
Act, 2023, came into operation whereby the period for submitting caste
validity certificates was further extended by twelve months from the date
of commencement of the Act in respect of candidates who had contested
elections on or before 1st August 2022.
12. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners’ elections were held
before 1st August 2022. Therefore, under the impression that they were
entitled to the benefit of the said enactment, the petitioners again moved
an application dated 3rd June 2025 before respondent No.2 – Collector
seeking restoration to their posts of Sarpanch and Members in view of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2023.
13. Respondent No.2 – Collector, by the impugned order dated 11th
February 2025, rejected the application filed by the petitioners by holding
that the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2023 is applicable only to
candidates whose applications are pending before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee. According to the Collector, since the petitioners’ caste claims
adn
6 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
being decided on merits and petitioners are at fault for non submission of
the Caste Validity Certificate within time they are not entitled to the
protection of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2023.
14. It is pertinent to note that after the decision of the Collector dated
11th February 2025, the State Government by Maharashtra Act No.XXX
of 2025 again enacted the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period
for Submitting Validity Certificate for Certain Elections to Village
Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 2025 and thereby
extended the period for submission of validity certificates by a further
period of twelve months to persons who had contested general or bye-
elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
st
held on or after 1 August 2022 till the date of commencement of the
said Act.
15. The petitioners therefore again approached before this Court by
way of the present Writ Petition No.5766 of 2025 contending that, as the
Maharashtra Act No.XXX of 2025 has further extended the period by
th
twelve months from the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 10 July
st
2025, to the persons who had contested general elections on or after 1
August 2022, they are entitled for protection and restoration to the
elected posts. It is further contended that learned Collector already
expressed his view in the matter, therefore, they approached before this
adn
7 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Court. During the pendency of present petition, they have
unconditionally withdrawn Writ Petition No.5765/2025 filed by them
against the order of Collector dated 11.02.2025.
16. Mr. Kalel, learned AGP for the respondents–State, and Mr. Vaibhav
Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 have strongly
opposed the present petition. According to the respondents, the last date
th
for submission of caste validity certificates by the petitioners was 9 July
2022. However, the petitioners failed to submit their caste validity
certificates on or before the cut off date. Hence, they cannot be granted
benefit of either the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023 or of
the Act of 2025.
17. It is further submitted that this is not a case where the caste
validity claims of the petitioners were pending before the Scrutiny
Committee. The caste claims of the petitioners had already been decided
and it is the petitioners who failed to submit validity certificates within
the prescribed period. Hence, petitioners cannot be given benefit of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023 and 2025. In short, it is
their submission that the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023
and 2025 apply only where caste validity claims are pending before the
Scrutiny Committee as contemplated under Section 3(1)(a) of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025. In the cases where caste
adn
8 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
claim is decided the provisions of the Extension Act, 2025 will not be
made applicable.
18. In light of the rival submissions, the issue which needs
consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023 and 2025. In view of the
controversy raised in the petition, we have requested Mr. Sural Shah
learned Senior counsel to assist the Court.
19. According to amicus curiae, as per Sections 3(1) (a) and (b), it is
stipulated that the act is applicable in the cases where application for
verification is pending before Committee and secondly where election is
terminated or disqualified for not submitting the certificate within time.
It is stated that in case the caste validity has been issued in favour of
candidate but failed to submit the same within time, would not get the
benefit of Extension Act-2025.
20. Learned amicus curiae submitted that Temporary Extension Act
must be interpreted in the light of its object and purpose. According to
him, it is a piece of beneficial & curative legislation, enacted only with a
purpose to mitigate the hardship caused to bonafide candidate arising
from administrative pendency. The Extension Act is for those who have
made bonafide efforts to obtain caste validity Certificate & whose
application remain Pending for reasons not attributable to them.
adn
9 of 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
21. It is further stated that any interpretation excluding candidates
who have obtained validity certificate but could not submit them within
the period would defeat the object of extension & render the statutory
Protection illusory.
22.
In the background of submission made by respective Advocates, it
would be relevant to reproduce Section 3 of the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for Certain
Elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis)
Act, 2025 which reads as under:
“3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 and in sections
10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act IIm
and sections 12A, 42 and 67 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, a person who has contested
the general or bye-elections to the Village Panchayats, Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis which were held on or after 1st
August 2022 till the date of commencement of this Act and,-
(a) who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification
of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the
nomination papers and who is elected on the reserved seat of a
member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or
President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat
Samiti, but whose application is pending before the Scrutiny
Committee on the date of commencement of this Act, shall
submit his Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months
from the date of commencement of this Act; and
(b) whose election has been terminated or deemed to have been
terminated or a person who is disqualified for being a member
or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or President of
Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, for
not submitting the Validity Certificate within the period
specified in sections mentioned above, shall be deemed to be
and shall continue to be a member or Sarpanch of Village
Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or member
adn
of 10 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be, and shall
not be disqualified till the period of twelve months from the
date of commencement of this Act for not submitting the
Validity Certificate:
Provided that, if such person fails to produce the Validity
Certificate within a period of twelve months from the date of
commencement of this Act, his election shall be deemed to have
been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for
being a member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or
President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat
Samiti.
2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not be applicable,-
(a) where bye-elections have been held on the seats specified in
sub- section (1) before the date of commencement of this Act; or
(b) where a member whose application of Validity Certificate
has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee.”
23. The petitioners, while relying upon Section 3 of the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025, have emphasised on the Section 3(2),
which according to them relevant in the matter. According to the
petitioners, till filing of the present petition, no bye-election to their posts
had been conducted by the State Government. Further, they have already
obtained caste validity certificates from the Scrutiny Committee. They
have also pointed out that elections to there respective posts of Sarpanch
and Members of the Gram Panchayat were held before 1st August 2022
and therefore they are entitled to protection under the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025.
24. On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon the
judgments of this Court in Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors. vs. State of
adn
of 11 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Maharashtra through Department of Rural Development & Ors. , reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2864 and Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. vs. Chief
Election Commissioner & Ors ., reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431 .
According to the respondents, Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act has already been interpreted by this Court. Relying on
same, it is the submission of the respondents that the provisions of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 would not apply to the case
of petitioners. By relying on section 3(1)(a) of the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025, it is submitted that for getting benefit of
said section, it is necessary that application should be pending with the
Caste Scrutiny Committee and once the same is disposed of, there is no
question of the applicability of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act,
2025 to the facts of this case.
25. In view of the submissions advanced, we have first perused the
judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench in Anant H. Ulahalkar (supra).
Perusal of the judgment shows that three questions were referred for
consideration, including whether the stipulation prescribed for
production of validity certificates is mandatory or directory. It would
therefore be relevant to reproduce relevant part of paragraph No.1 and
paragraph Nos.2 and 100 of the said judgment, which read thus :
“1.
adn
of 12 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
The main issue involved in this reference is whether the
aforesaid stipulation of six months for production of Validity
Certificate is only directory as held by the Division Bench
(Coram S. B. Mhase and D. G. Karnik, JJ.) in the case of
Dadasheb A. Gulve v/s. State fo Maharashtra and Ors., 2007
MhLJ Online 7=2008 (2) Bom. C.R. 712 (Gulve) or whether
the same is mandatory, as held by the Division Bench (Coram :
D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ.) in Sadashiv J. Shrote vs.
State of Maharashtra and ors., 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 203 (Shrote).
2. The genesis of this reference is the order dated 11 August,
2015 made in the present Writ Petition by the Division Bench
(Coram: Naresh H. Patil and V. L. Achliya, JJ.). This order takes
cognizance of the aforesaid conflict and opines that the matter
be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider whether
reference needs to be made to a Larger Bench. The order also
notes that the following questions of law arise :
(i) Whether the time limit prescribed under section 9-A of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965, for submission of caste validity
certificate by elected Councillor is mandatory in nature?
(ii) Whether the failure on the part of person elected as
Councillor to produce the caste validity certificate within the
period of six months from the date on which he was declared
elected, irrespective of facts and circumstances and eventuality
beyond the control of such person to produce validity certificate
would automatically result into termination of his election with
retrospective effect?
(iii) Whether the validation of caste claim of elected Councillor
by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would
automatically result into termination of such Councillor with
retrospective operation?
100. In the result, we hold that the time limit of six months
prescribed in the two provisos to section 9-A of the said Act,
within which an elected person is required to produce the
Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee is mandatory.
Further, in terms of second proviso to section 9-A if a person
fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of six months
from the date on which he is elected, his election shall be
deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be
disqualified for being a Councillor.
Such retrospective termination of his election and
disqualification for being a Councillor would be automatic and
adn
of 13 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
validation of his caste claim after the stipulated period would
not result in restoration of his election.”
From the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Full Bench, it is clear
that the time period prescribed for submitting caste validity certificates is
mandatory and if a person fails to produce the validity certificate within
the stipulated period, his election shall be deemed to have been
terminated retrospectively and he shall stand disqualified for being a
Councillor/Member.
26. In our considered opinion, the Hon’ble Full Bench has decided
applicability of Section 10A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, but
question of applicability and effect of the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension Acts of 2023 and 2025 was not the issue before the Hon’ble
Full Bench. Therefore, this judgment would not applicable in the present
matter.
27. The respondents have then relied upon the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench in the case of Bapu Rajaram Kalel (supra), wherein the
issue involved was that in a no-confidence motion, one of the members
who found disqualified for not submitting the caste validity certificate
within the prescribed period can participate in a meeting of
Grampanchayat. In the said case, it was held that if a person fails to
submit the caste validity certificate within the prescribed period, he is not
adn
of 14 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
entitled to continue as a Member consequently cannot participate in a
meeting held for discussion of No Confidence against Sarpanch. In
respect of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023 and 2025,
the observations made by the Coordinate Bench, which according to the
respondents are relevant, are paragraph Nos.30 to 32, which read thus :
“30. The question is not of an interpretation of Section 3,
but when it comes into play. Now Sudhir was disqualified, and
his election terminated well before the date of the Petition itself,
rd
i.e., 23 June 2023. Indeed, his disqualification was even
th st
earlier, of 20 or 21 January 2022 and invalidated or
st
terminated his election of one year prior, 21 January 2021. If
the interpretation on behalf of Sudhir is to be accepted, it would
mean that a termination or disqualification that has already
taken place six months before the effective date of the
Temporary Extension Act is somehow suddenly revived and
extended by a period of 12 months. That results in an absurdity
because it would mean, in this case, that Sudhir functioned in a
st th
disqualified fashion from 21 January 2022 to 10 July 2023,
i.e., for a year and half, and abruptly got an extension of
another 12 months to sanctify his election.
31. What is entirely overlooked in this argument is sub-section
(2), emphasised above. The whole of sub-section (1) has no
application where a member's validity certificate application has
been rejected by the scrutiny committee. Obviously, the
Temporary Extension Act only takes care of what we may call
"the caste certificate twilight zone" where an application is
made, but remains pending for months together.
32. In this particular case, Sudhir's application for a Validity
st
Certificate was rejected on 1 April 2021. The argument that
this rejection is technical is totally irrelevant. In fact, the order
seems to us to expose precisely the mischief that is sought to be
cured and addressed by Section 10-1A and the amended
proviso. It is not permissible for a candidate to simply file an
application and do nothing further. That application for a
Validity Certificate must be properly filed and followed through.
The mere filing of the application is not in sufficient compliance
with the statute. The Validity Certificate has to be obtained
within the time provided, whether by the original statute or by
the Temporary Extension Act. Simply filing some sort of
defective application with incomplete documents does not meet
the statutory purpose.”
adn
of 15 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
28. In view of the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, the submission of the respondents is that if a person fails to submit
the caste validity certificate within the prescribed period, then he would
not be entitled to the benefit of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension
Acts of 2023 and 2025.
29. Before considering the observations made by the Coordinate Bench
in the case of Bapu Rajaram Kalel (supra), it is relevant to note Section 3
of the Act and more particularly, Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the said
Act. The said provision carves out exceptions in two situations to the
benefit granted to the persons contemplated under section 3(1), firstly
where bye-elections have been held and secondly the caste validity
certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. In view of this
provision, it is relevant to note that in Bapu Rajaram Kalel (supra), the
application seeking Caste Validity was “filed” and thus deemed to have
been rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thus, there was no
occasion to consider the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 3 on section
3(1)(a) and (b)of the Temporary Extension Act. However, in the present
case, the effect of sub-section (2) of section 3 on section 3(1)(a) and (b)
needs consideration as in the present case the Caste Scrutiny Committee
has issued Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioners.
30. The Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Bapu Rajaram Kalel
adn
of 16 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
(supra), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Vikas
Kalel & Ors. vs. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors. , reported in (2024) 3 SCC
679 , shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while confirming the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench has mainly considered the aspects of
Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2023. In any
case as per the factual position before the Supreme Court as the
application seeking validity was “filed” and thus deemed to have been
rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, the issue before the Supreme Court
was completely different and there was no occasion to consider the effect
of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act. This fact is
clear from the observations recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph Nos. 37 to 46, which read thus :
37. The High Court, in the impugned order [Bapu Rajaram Kalel v.
State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2864] , has recorded the
following findings in its operative portion : (Bapu Rajaram Kalel case
[Bapu Rajaram Kalel v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom
2864] , SCC OnLine Bom paras 32-34)
“32. In this particular case, Sudhir's application for a validity
certificate was rejected on 1-4-2021. The argument that this rejection
is technical is totally irrelevant. In fact, the order seems to us to
expose precisely the mischief that is sought to be cured and addressed
by Section 10-1A and the amended proviso. It is not permissible for a
candidate to simply file an application and do nothing further. That
application for a validity certificate must be properly filed and
followed through. The mere filing of the application is not in sufficient
compliance with the statute. The validity certificate has to be obtained
within the time provided, whether by the original statute or by the
Temporary Extension Act. Simply filing some sort of defective
application with incomplete documents does not meet the statutory
purpose.
33. Thus, if even the mischief rule of interpretation, the oldest
interpretation doctrine by far, [Heydon case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76
ER 637] is adopted for the purposes of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Temporary Extension Act, it is clear that
adn
of 17 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
defective or incomplete applications that result in a rejection are no
different from a rejection on merits. Yet, Section 3(2)(b) of the
Temporary Extension Act is thus an essential safeguard.
34. Viewed from either perspective, the Temporary Extension Act
cannot come to Sudhir's rescue. We note from the Ordinance, a copy
of which is at pages 93 and 96, that it was necessitated because of the
huge backlog of applications pending before the scrutiny committee.”
38. As was set out earlier, after obtaining his caste certificate on 3-2-
2013, it was only on 30-12-2020 that is on the same day of the
nomination that Appellant 1 moved the Scrutiny Committee for
obtaining the validity certificate. The elections were held on 18-1-
2021 and the results were declared on 21-1-2021. He ought to have
furnished the validity certificate by 20-1-2022.
39. After filing his application for the validity certificate on 30-12-
2020, he undertook that he would file the declaration of the results
within a week. Besides, this undertaking is legally backed by the
judgment in Mandakani Kachru Kokane [Mandakani Kachru Kokane v.
State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1900 : (2021) 3 Mah LJ
221] , which no doubt gave two weeks from the date of declaration of
the result for communication of the declaration to the Scrutiny
Committee. Admittedly, Appellant 1 did not submit the declaration
either within one week as undertaken or within two weeks as
provided in Mandakani Kachru Kokane [Mandakani Kachru Kokane v.
State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 1900 : (2021) 3 Mah LJ
221] . In cases where there is due communication from the
applicants, the Division Bench in Mandakani Kachru Kokane
[Mandakani Kachru Kokane v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 1900 : (2021) 3 Mah LJ 221] had obligated the Scrutiny
Committee to decide the case within a maximum period of eight
months from the date of communication. The Scrutiny Committee
which is faced with a large number of applications can legitimately
expect that the applicants who require disposal on priority basis
should comply with the formalities required to enable the applicant to
get priority in decision-making. The Committee under Rule 17(3) is
also entitled to reject incomplete applications by recording reasons.
Under Section 17(2) it is also the obligation of the applicant to
comply with removal of objections raised.
40. It is in this background that the order of 1-4-2021 to 3-4-2021
came to be passed whereby the applications (including those of
Appellant 1), were “filed”. On the facts of the case, the question is,
would the order of 1-4-2021 to 3-4-2021 tantamount to a rejection
under Section 3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 so as to
disentitle Appellant 1 from the benefit of Section 3.
41. To answer this question, the object of Sections 10-1A and 30-1A
of the Panchayats Act along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary
adn
of 18 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Extension Act, 2023 ought to be borne in mind. As has been correctly
held in Anant H. Ulahalkar [Anant H. Ulahalkar v. Chief Election
Commr., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9862 : (2017) 1 Mah LJ 431] while
reiterating the holding in Sujit Vasant Patil [Sujit Vasant Patil v. State
of Maharashtra, 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 697] , ordinarily, the rule is
for an aspiring candidate in an election to submit the caste certificate
and the validity certificate along with the nomination. However, a
window of twelve months was given for those who have not obtained
the validity certificate to furnish the same and this was held to be a
“risk” that the applicants were taking. Under the Caste Certificate Act,
2000, the certificate attains finality only if it is authenticated with a
validity certificate. That statute and scheme have been discussed
hereinabove. From those who aspire to contest for a reserved seat and
who take a risk of applying for the validity certificate by filing an
application before the date of nomination, it is prudent to expect that
they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution of their
application. This would mean that they are expected to do all that is
within their control to do and submit with the Scrutiny Committee a
valid application for their consideration. In fact, it was on the basis
that applicants aspiring to contest election who do not possess a
validity certificate, were taking a risk, that the provisions were held to
be mandatory.
42. Further and independent of the above, Mandakani Kachru Kokane
[Mandakani Kachru Kokane v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 1900 : (2021) 3 Mah LJ 221] which came on 27-10-
2020 well before Appellant 1 filed his nomination clearly mandated
that there was an obligation on the applicants before the Scrutiny
Committee to furnish the declaration of the results within two weeks
of the declaration of the results for expeditious disposal. In this case,
results were announced on 21-1-2021. Under the law, as it obtained
in Maharashtra, as laid down in the statute and in the judgments of
the Court, there was an obligation to furnish the validity certificate on
or before 20-1-2022. Appellant 1 admitted in the second application
filed on 14-6-2023 that in spite of possessing the declaration of the
result, for some reason, he could not file the same with the Scrutiny
Committee. The consequence was that on 20-1-2022, Appellant 1
stood automatically disqualified as a member with retrospective effect
from the date of his election, under Section 10-1A of the Panchayats
Act. On 1-4-2021 to 3-4-2021, under Rules 17(2) and 17(3) of the
Caste Certificate Rules, the applications were “filed” for not
submitting of the notification of his election. It is pertinent to note
that the said order was never challenged by Appellant 1 and so it has
attained finality.
43. To hold that—in spite of Appellant 1 not doing everything
required to be done, and which were under his control to do—his
application before the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was still
pending on 10-7-2023 for the purposes of Section 3 of the Temporary
adn
of 19 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Extension Act, 2023, would be letting Appellant 1 take advantage of
his own wrong. It will also go against the object and purpose of
extending the time for production of the validity certificate by further
period of twelve months from 10-7-2023.
44. As is clear from Section 3(1), the further period of twelve months
from 10-7-2023 was for those whose applications were validly filed
and pending and where their applications have been submitted before
the date of nomination. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 3 of the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023 only revives the membership of those,
whose applications are pending by enacting a deeming provision,
since they are now given a further period of twelve months from 10-
7-2023 to furnish the validity certificate. Sub-section (2)(b) clearly
states that Section 3(1) was not to apply to members whose
applications for validity certificate have been rejected by the Scrutiny
Committee.
45. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellant 1 that there
was no rejection and that it was only a “filing” or “lodgment” of the
application on 1-4-2021 to 3-4-2021 by the Scrutiny Committee, does
not commend itself to us for acceptance. The rejection in Section 3(2)
(b) will also include those cases where applications came to be
rejected on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants
themselves. An applicant who has certain things under his control
ought to have done everything that is under his control for the
purpose of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. This
would also mean that Section 3(1) of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023 would not apply since there was no valid application filed
before the nomination to the Scrutiny Committee and which was
pending. That his application was not pending, was also the
undertaking of Appellant 1, as explained hereinabove. Accepting the
contention of Appellant 1 would also amount to putting a premium
on the concession given to a party who was taking the “risk” of
contesting the election by not having a validity certificate on the date
of the nomination.
46. For the above reasons, we hold that Appellant 1 stood
automatically disqualified as a member since he failed to produce the
validity certificate within 12 months from the date of his election. The
protective umbrella of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023 will not be available to Appellant 1 since he is hit by Section
3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application pending on
the date of the commencement of the said Act.
From the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, it is clear that the effect of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra
adn
of 20 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Temporary Extension Act, 2025 on section 3(1) (a) and (b) was not
specifically dealt with in the said judgment. It is clear that in that case the
application seeking Caste Validity was “filed” and deemed to have been
rejected.
31. It would be material to note that Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act prescribe a general rule of submission of caste
validity within six months, coupled with a consequence of deemed
retrospective termination. However, the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension Act, 2023 and 2025 introduce a remedial and overriding
framework, carving out a relaxation in deserving cases. These
enactments, particularly by use of “non-obstante” clause, clearly evince
legislative intent to override the rigours of the parent statute and defer
the operation of disqualification in specified circumstance stated therein.
Therefore, in our opinion, this provision must be interpreted in a manner
that preserves this statutory balance between rule, relaxation, and
consequences.
32. In our opinion, Temporary Extension Acts, 2025 is in the nature of
beneficial and curative legislation, enacted to address hardships caused
by systemic delays in caste verification. The Temporary Extension Act
must therefore be interpreted in light of its object and purpose, namely,
to mitigate hardship caused to bona fide candidates, while not diluting
adn
of 21 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
the requirement of eventual submission of caste validity certificates. It is
a piece of beneficial and curative legislation, enacted to address
exceptional situation. The Temporary Extension Act is a continuation of
this balancing exercise and deserves to be interpreted in a manner that
advances the cause of justice, sustains democratic representation, and
upholds the true spirit of reservation in local self-government institutions.
33. It would be relevant to note that Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of
the Temporary Extension Act clearly provides the circumstances in which
the benefit of said section is not available. The same specifies only two
exceptions namely where bye-elections have been held on the seats
specified in sub-section (1) before the date of commencement of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 and where a member whose
application of Validity Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny
Committee. Admittedly, in this case these two circumstances have not
taken place. Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel has more particularly
emphasized on the sub-section (1) of section 3 which provides that
benefit is available only if application is pending before the Scrutiny
Committee. However, the said sub-section (1) of section 3 is required to
be read with sub-section (2) of section 3. Thus, it is clear that the benefit
of sub-section (1) particularly of sub-section 1(b) is available if inter alia
application of the applicant is not rejected by the Case Scrutiny
adn
of 22 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Committee. Admittedly, in this case, Scrutiny Committee has granted
Validity Certificate to the petitioners. Thus, to this case two exceptions
specified in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act
are not applicable.
34. We are interpreting this provision in a manner stated above
because the concept of reservation in local self-government institutions
finds its roots in the constitutional mandate of social justice under the
Constitution of India. The introduction of reservation in village
panchayats and other local bodies was intended to ensure meaningful
participation of historically marginalized sections such as Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and women in
grassroots democracy. This policy is not merely representational but
transformative in nature, aiming to dismantle long-standing social
barriers and to enable equitable distribution of political power. Hence,
this provisions cannot be given restrictive interpretation excluding the
candidates who have obtained the validity certificate but could not
submit them within earlier period which would defeat the very object of
the extension and rendered the statutory protection illusory.
35. In the present matter, the proviso, which plays an important role, is
required to be considered. Generally speaking, a proviso is intended to
limit the enacted provision so as to except something which would
adn
of 23 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
otherwise been within it or in some measure to modify the enacting
clause. Sometimes, a proviso may be embedded in the main provision
and becomes an integral part of it so as to amount to a substantive
provision itself. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to
something within the main enactment or to qualify something enacted
therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the
enactment. In other words, a proviso cannot be torn apart from the main
enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at naught the real object of
the main enactment.
36. It would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of S. Sundaram Pallai and others Vs. V.R
Pattabiraman and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 591 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of a proviso and it
different purposes. In this judgment by referring all relevant case laws,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has sum up the different purposes of proviso.
The same is carved out in paragraph No.43 of the judgment. Paragraph
No.43 of the judgment reads as under:
“ 43. We need not multiply authorities after authorities on this
point because the legal position seems to be clearly and
manifestly well established. To sum up a proviso may serve four
different purposes:
(1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main
enactment:
adn
of 24 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
(2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of
the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to
be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable:
(3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an
integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and
colour of the substantive enactment itself; and
(4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the
enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment
of the statutory provision. ”
37. In the present matter, considering the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Clause 3(2) of the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025, clearly states that Section 3(1) would
not be applicable in two contingencies, (i) where bye-elections have been
held, or (ii) where the validity certificate has been rejected by the
Scrutiny Committee. If the aforesaid two contingencies do not exist, then
Section 3(1) has to be made applicable to the candidates whose elections
were held before 01.08.2022, and the persons whose elections had been
terminated shall also be deemed to have continued as members or
Sarpanchs of the Village Panchayat. Hence, the submission of the
respondents that, once the elections of the petitioners had been
terminated, they are not entitled to the benefit of the said Act is,
according to us, misconceived.
38. In addition to the above, it would also be relevant to note that the
rules of interpretation of statutes specifically state that words, phrases, or
adn
of 25 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
sentences should ordinarily be understood in their natural, ordinary, and
grammatical sense, unless such construction leads to absurdity. A perusal
of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 clearly demonstrates
that the same has been enacted to grant protection to elected candidates
who failed to produce caste validity certificates within the prescribed
time period. It is further clear that, by enacting the said Act, the intention
of the legislature is to ascertain the basic rule of reservation and to grant
protection to candidates elected from reserved categories.
39. In view of this intention of the legislation, the statutory provisions
are required to be interpreted by applying the principle of purposive
construction. The purposive construction has been recently considered by
the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vivek
Narayan Sharma and others Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (3) SCC
1 , wherein in paragraph No.148 observed as under:
“ 148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the
modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and
not pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose of
the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious
working must be chosen and the other which leads to
absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and
conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or
tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the
enactment must be eschewed. The primary and foremost task
of the Court in interpreting a statute is to gather the intention
of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the
adn
of 26 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
intention, it is the duty of the Court to strive to so interpret
the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose
of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary, the Court
may even depart from the rule that plain words should be
interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be
no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the
language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or
to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in
departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as
to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment.
Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic rule of statutory
construction. ”
40. The benefit of the sub-section (3)(1)(b) of the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025 providing that a person whose election
has been terminated or deemed to have been terminated or a person who
is disqualified for being a member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat,
Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of
Panchayat Samiti, for not submitting the Validity Certificate within the
period specified in sections mentioned above, shall be deemed to be and
shall continue to be a member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat,
Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of
Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be, and shall not be disqualified till the
period of twelve months from the date of commencement of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 for not submitting the
Validity Certificate is not available only in two contingencies namely
adn
of 27 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
where bye-elections have been held on the seats specified in sub-section
(1) before the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension Act, 2025 and where a member whose application of Validity
Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. Any other
interpretation will defeat the purpose of the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension Act, 2025. As held by the Supreme Court having ascertained
the intention, it is the duty of the Court to strive to interpret the statute
as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For
this purpose, where necessary, the Court may even depart from the rule
that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning.
There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the
language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid
invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing from the
so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and
purpose of the enactment. Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic
rule of statutory construction. Thus, denying benefit of sub-section 3(1)
(b) of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 to a person whom
Caste Scrutiny Committee has granted Validity Certificate will defeat the
purpose of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025.
41. In the present case, we have observed from the chronological
events that after the elections held on 20th December 2022, the period of
adn
of 28 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
twelve months for submitting caste validity certificates expired on 9th
July 2024. However, before the said date, i.e., on 12th July 2023, 26th
June 2023 and 20th November 2023 respectively, the petitioners were
already in receipt of caste validity certificates. Merely because the same
were not submitted in a proper manner, such democratically elected
members of the Gram Panchayat cannot be disqualified in the light of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Acts of 2023 and 2025.
42. In the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the
intention of the legislation and the specific provision, the Maharashtra
Temporary Extension Act, 2025, we are of the considered opinion that in
view of Section 3 (2), the petitioners whose seats are not filled in by way
of bye-election till date and more importantly, they possess the validity
certificate obtained during the period of one year, are not covered under
sub-section 3(2)(b) i.e. where a member whose application of Validity
Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee are, certainly
entitled for the protection provided under Section 3(1)(a) and (b) of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025.
43. In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and hereby
declare that the petitioners are entitled to protection in terms of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2025 and thereby they stand
restored to their respective positions as Sarpanch and Members of Gram
adn
of 29 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::

wp-5766-2025 (1).doc
Panchayat Kshetra Mahuli, Taluka Satara and District Satara, as per the
results of the general elections held in the month of December 2022.
44. The impugned order dated 11th February 2025 passed by
respondent No. 2 – Collector disqualifying the petitioners from the posts
of Sarpanch and Members of Gram Panchayat Kshetra Mahuli, Taluka
Satara and District Satara is hereby quashed and set aside.
45. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
46. We appreciate valuable assistance of Senior Counsel Mr. Sural Shah
along with Mr. Nikhil Adkine, Counsel in the present matter.
[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
adn
of 30 30
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 17:39:35 :::