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 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 14th 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 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.01 09:40:54 +0530 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 17th 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 10th 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: : O R D E R : (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