SARIKA MANGESH PAWARversusDEEPAK RAJARAM SAWANT AND ORS

                                                                   904-WP10304-2026.DOC

                                                                                  Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10304 OF 2026

                      Sarika Mangesh Pawar                                  ...Petitioner
                                      Versus
                      Deepak Rajaram Sawant And Ors                     …Respondents

                      Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, a/w Ms. Sudhanva Bedekar, and Ms.
                            Shweta More, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, for the Respondent No. 1.
                      Mr. Santosh Mali, for Respondent No. 6 - BMC.

                                                        CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                        DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI              Oral Order:-
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.01
09:40:54 +0530
                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


                      2.   The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 14 th July,

                      2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small

                      Causes, Mumbai, in Municipal Election Petition No.15/2026,

                      whereby the application (Exhibit-19) preferred by the petitioner

                      seeking a declaration that the petitioner is the returned

                      candidate      from   Ward   No.111,   Brihanmumbai     Municipal

                      Corporation, having secured the next highest number of valid

                      votes, after the respondent No.1, whose caste certificate has

                      been invalidated resulting in disqualification for continuation

                      as a Councilor from the said ward, was directed to be kept in

                                                      1/6
                                                  904-WP10304-2026.DOC

abeyance     till   the   order   passed   by   the    High   Court   in

WP/2979/2026 preferred by the respondent No.1 before the

Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.


3.      The petitioner has preferred election petition assailing the

election of the respondent No.1.         During the pendency of the

said Election Petition, on 15th June, 2026, the District Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Ratnagiri, has declared the

caste certificate of respondent No.1 invalid.           The petitioner

claims, on 17th June, 2026, pursuant to the said decision of the

Caste     Scrutiny    Committee,    the    Municipal    Commissioner,

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has passed an order to

the effect that in view of the provisions contained in Section

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

respondent No.1 has ceased to be a member of the Municipal

Corporation in view of the invalidation of respondent No.1’s

caste certificate.


4.      Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 has preferred writ

petition being WP/2979/2026 before the Circuit Bench at

Kolhapur.


5.      The petitioner preferred an application (Exhibit-19) in the

Election Petition seeking a prayer that, the petitioner, who has

secured next highest number of votes, be declared as an elected
                                   2/6
                                                904-WP10304-2026.DOC

candidate from Ward No.111. The learned Judge, Court of Small

Causes, was persuaded to pass a common order on the said

application and another application preferred by the respondent

No.1 to adjourn the matter till the High Court decides the above-

numbered writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and keep

the said application (Exhibit-19) in abeyance till further order

which may be passed by the High Court.          The learned Judge

was of the view that, as the High Court was already seized of the

matter, passing any parallel order or deciding the application

(Exhibit-19) preferred by the petitioner, may prejudice the

ongoing proceeding before the High Court.


6.   The following facts are rather incontrovertible:


     First,   respondent   No.1’s    caste   certificate   has   been

invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ratnagiri, by a

judgment and order dated 15th June, 2026. It was, inter alia,

declared that the respondent No.1 does not belong to Kunabi-83

Other Backward Class Category. Second, pursuant to the said

order, the Municipal Commissioner has passed an order on 17 th

June, 2026 recording, inter alia, that in view of the declaration

made by the Cast Scrutiny Committee in regard to the caste

claim of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 ceased to be

a member of the Municipal Corporation. Three, the respondent

                               3/6
                                                  904-WP10304-2026.DOC

No.1 has preferred writ petition before the Circuit Bench at

Kolhapur assailing the legality and correctness of the order

passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Four, till date no

interim relief is granted by the High Court in the said petition.


7.   The Court is informed that the said petition is now

scheduled to be listed before the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur on

10th September, 2026.


8.   Section 16(1C) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,

1888, inter alia, provides that Councilor who has been elected to

a reserved seat shall be disqualified for being such Councilor

consequent upon the concerned Scrutiny Committee constituted

under sub-section (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, declaring the caste

certificate of such Councilor to be invalid and thereupon the

Councilor shall be deemed to have vacated his office on and

from the date of the declaration of such certificate to be invalid

and cancellation of the same by the said Scrutiny Committee.


9.   The question that wrenches to the fore is, whether the

mere fact that the respondent No.1 has preferred a writ petition
                                  4/6
                                                       904-WP10304-2026.DOC

assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee before the High Court would arrest

the consequences that emanate from the statutory provisions

contained        in   Section   16(1C)    of   the   Mumbai       Municipal

Corporation Act, which, in a sense, provides for a instantaneous

and automatic disqualification?


10.   It    is    true,   the   respondent      No.1    has     immediately

approached the High Court being aggrieved by the order of the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, the mere filing and

pendency of the writ petition, without any interim relief, can

under      no    circumstances     be    construed     as     obviating   the

consequences provided by a deeming provision.


11.   In these circumstances, the impugned order to the extent

of keeping the application (Exhibit-19) in abeyance till the

orders passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.


12.   Since the Court is informed that the writ petition is

scheduled to be listed before the High Court on 10 th September,

2026, to provide a reasonable opportunity to the respondent

No.1 to work out his remedies in the said petition before the

High Court, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the

learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, to take up Election


                                    5/6
                                                904-WP10304-2026.DOC

Petition No.15/2026 for passing appropriate orders on the

application (Exhibit-19), on 18th September, 2026.


13.    Hence, the following order:


                            :ORDER:


(i)    The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.


(ii)   Election Petition No.15/2026 be listed before the learned

       Judge, Court of Small Causes, on 18th September, 2026.


(iii) The learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, is directed to

       pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, on the

       said application (Exhibit-19).


(iv) It is hereby clarified that, this Court has not entered into

       the merits of the application (Exhibit-19), including the

       justifiability of the prayers therein, and all contentions of

       all the parties are kept open for adjudication by the learned

       Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mumbai.


(v)    The petition stands disposed.


                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                 6/6