Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Bharat Latkar, obtained a caste certificate on 15.5.2010 certifying that he belongs to the 'Pancham' caste, recognized as Other Backward Class. The Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a Validity Certificate on 19.5.2010. The petitioner contested the election of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 12, reserved for OBC, held on 30.10.2010, and was elected by a majority of votes. Respondent No. 4, Smita Maruti Mane, who contested and lost, filed a writ petition (No. 1855 of 2011) challenging the Validity Certificate. The High Court set aside the Validity Certificate on 1.7.2011 on the ground that the caste claim was not referred to the Police Vigilance. Subsequently, the Commissioner of the Corporation issued a communication dated 10.1.2012 retrospectively terminating the petitioner's election as a Corporator. The petitioner challenged this communication by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the Commissioner had no power under the BPMC Act to terminate the election of a corporator. The election could only be challenged by an election petition under the Act. The setting aside of the caste validity certificate did not automatically invalidate the election. The impugned communication was quashed and set aside as being without jurisdiction and illegal.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Election of Corporator - Retrospective Termination - Commissioner's Power - The Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation has no power under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 to retrospectively terminate the election of a corporator. The election of a corporator can only be challenged by way of an election petition under the BPMC Act. The communication dated 10.1.2012 issued by the Commissioner terminating the petitioner's election retrospectively was held to be without jurisdiction and illegal. (Paras 2, 5-7) B) Caste Certificate - Validity Certificate - Effect on Election - The setting aside of a caste validity certificate by the High Court does not automatically invalidate the election of a corporator. The election can only be set aside through an election petition under the BPMC Act. The petitioner's election was valid until set aside by a competent forum. (Paras 3-4, 6-7) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of Illegal Order - The High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash an order passed without jurisdiction. The impugned communication dated 10.1.2012 was quashed and set aside as it was issued without any statutory authority. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of a Municipal Corporation has the power to retrospectively terminate the election of a corporator on the ground that the caste validity certificate issued to the corporator was subsequently set aside by the High Court, and whether such termination is valid without an election petition under the BPMC Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the communication dated 10.1.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, and held that the Commissioner had no power to terminate the election of the petitioner retrospectively.
Law Points
- Retrospective termination of election without statutory authority is illegal
- Commissioner cannot terminate election of corporator
- election can only be challenged by election petition under BPMC Act
- validity of caste certificate does not affect election unless set aside in election petition
