JUDGMENT
A.H. Joshi, J.
1. Rule. Smt. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, waives service for respondents No. 1 to 3. Service on respondents No. 4 and 5 is dispensed with. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
The petitioner is before this Court, since his nomination paper has been rejected by assigning the reason that he has failed to furnish the acknowledgment of having furnished an application for scrutiny of his caste claim prior to 22-9-2007.
2. We had issued notice before admission on 26-9-2007 and called upon the learned Additional Government Pleader to verify two things as under:
(1) Whether the petitioner had furnished necessary information for caste scrutiny as required by law, and
(2) Whether its acknowledgment was produced along with nomination paper.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader has answered both the above queries as follows:
(1) The application for forwarding the caste claim of the petitioner was furnished to the Tahsildar. However, he was unwilling to accept it, because 22nd September, 2007 being the fourth Saturday. However, the Tahsildar had accepted the application and issued the acknowledgment, and
(2) The acknowledgment was produced.
4. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, in the absence of furnishing the validation of his caste claim, at least an acknowledgment of his having furnished the papers for referring his caste claim for scrutiny “before the date,6ffiling nomination paper” was required to be furnished.
5. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, this is the requirement, since it is so laid down in First Proviso to Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. For ready reference, the said Proviso is quoted below:
Provided that, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination paper but who has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination paper shall submit, along with the nomination paper,-
(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof for having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and
(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of three months from the date of his election, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee:
6. On considering the provisions, we find that the nomination paper could be furnished within the time span prescribed in the election programme. In the present case, this span was between 17th and 22nd September, 2007.
7. The purpose of permitting a candidate to furnish an acknowledgment is to ensure that a candidate, who has not complied with the requirement of furnishing validation, should at least prove that he has applied for verification of his caste claim, which is a matter within his control and power. The scheme of Section 10-1A of the said Act is thus of not permitting a candidate to furnish his nomination paper unless he has complied with that requirement.
8. The requirement is that application for reference must have been so furnished “before” the event of filing nomination. It would be of no significance if the application is furnished ‘few hours’ before or before “the date”, or a day or two more, since the procedure of scrutiny of claim by the Committee is a long-drawn process, as laid down in the law.
9. The reference to the words “before the date” appearing in the First Proviso to Section 10-1A of the said Act do not have any special emphasis, since it could not be said that scrutiny of caste claim could have been completed if application is submitted “before the date” but could not be undertaken if submitted just before filing nomination.
10. In this background, we find that the petitioner’s nomination was rejected relying on the technicality, which had crept in due to the use of words “before the date” instead of mere “before” in the First Proviso to Section 10-1A of the said Act, quoted above. In the result, the petitioner’s nomination, which was liable to be accepted, was wrongly rejected.
11. We, therefore, make the rule absolute in terms of prayer Clause (ii) and hold that the rejection on the ground of failure to submit the acknowledgment “before the date” is bad when the petitioner had submitted acknowledgment before filing nomination, and that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the process of election, if otherwise eligible.
12. The parties shall bear own costs. The learned Additional Government Pleader to communicate this order to the respondents.