Bombay High Court
Mrs. Mandakani Kachru Kokane @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 27 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2285
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: R. D. Dhanuka, Madhav J. Jamdar
1/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) 5573 OF 2020
Mrs. Mandakani Kachru Kokane
@ Mandakani Vishnu Godse
Aged:43 Years, Occu. Household
R/o. Post Ghoti (K), Tal. Igatpuri,
District: Nashik -422 403. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Maharashtra
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. District Caste Certificate,
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik
Naya Bhavan, Near Nasardi Bridge,
Nashik-Pune Road,
Nashik-11.
3. Atmaram Dyaneshwar Fokane
Aged: 38 Years, Occu.:- Agri.
R/o. Post Ghoti (K.), Tal. Igatpuri,
District: Nashik-422 403
4. Gram Panchayat Ghoti (K.)
Tal. Igatpuri, District: Nashik
5. The Collector,
District: Nashik.
6. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
7. Rural Development Department
(State of Maharashtra)
Through its Secretary ...Respondents
Shri Satyajit Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sachin Gite, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
Seema
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 :::
2/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
Shri Yuvraj Patil learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 7.
..........
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.J.
RESERVED ON : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th OCTOBER, 2020
JUDGMENT :(PER MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
1. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2020, passed by the Respondent No.2-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik in Case No. 3809 of 2019 and further relief seeking direction to the respondent no. 2 to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner for "Kunbi" caste which comes under Other Backward Caste. The petitioner has also sought relief seeking direction to the respondent no. 7 i.e. Rural Development Department, State of Maharashtra to extend the time period for submitting Caste Validity Certificate under Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
2. The case put up by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner had contested for the direct post of Sarpanch of the Ghoti (K) Grampanchayat for the period 2019-2024 which was specifically reserved for OBC candidates. The petitioner was elected for the said post of Sarpanch on 26.06.2019. The petitioner had obtained the Caste Certificate for "Kunbi" Other Backward Caste dated 6.04.2017 from the office of SDO, Igatpuri, Trambakesh Sub- division, Nashik. The petitioner at the time of submitting nomination form for the post of Sarpanch has given undertaking that she would Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 3/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc submit the Caste Validity certificate within the period of one year from the date of declaration of the election result. Therefore, the petitioner filed application dated 28.05.2019 alongwith relevant documents with the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as "the committee") . The respondent no.3 who had unsuccessfully contested Election for the post of Sarpanch against Petitioner lodged objections dated 16.07.2019, 16.09.2019 and 17.09.2019. The petitioner in the Writ Petition has contended that before the Committee, in order to establish that she belongs to Kunbi (Other Backward Caste) had inter-alia submitted following documents:-
(i) The genealogy of her Family. (ii) Certificate of Child birth issued to Bhiva Trambak Kokane,
under village form no. 14 of the year 1893 of village sansari.(This documents is in "Modi" script.)
(iii) Affidavit dated 4.10.2019 of Pirzada Hafiz Ahmad Jainoddin, who has translated the certificate at Sr. no. (ii).
(iv) Translation in Marathi of Certificate at Sr. no. (ii).
(v) Village form no. 14 which is an extract of birth and death showing entry of death of Parvati Bhiva Kokane in the year 1917, wherein the Caste is mentioned as "Kunbi".
(vi) Revenue record showing the mutation entries as well as other revenue entries indicating how the family tree tallies with Revenue record and Bhiva Trambak Kokane andParvatibai Bhiva Kokane are related to the petitioner.
(vii) Caste Validity Certificate issued to Rohit Kokane, the nephew of the petitioner was submitted in the course of hearing before the Committee.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 4/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
3. The petitioner has further stated in the Writ Petition that the Committee was pleased to call for report of the Vigilance Department and accordingly reports dated 3.01.2020, 31.01.2020 and 19.05.2020 were submitted to the Committee by the Vigilance Committee. In the report of the Vigilance Committee dated 3.01.2020, it is specifically mentioned that no record is found with respect to the document in Modi Script hereinabove referred at Sr. no. 2 (ii). In view of the said Vigilance report, petitioner applied for Certified copy with Tahsil Office and by letter dated 18.06.2020, it was informed to the petitioner that the said record is in damaged condition and therefore, certified copy could not be issued.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner in the Writ Petition that after 28.02.2020, the proceedings before the Committee did not go ahead and thereafter in view of Covid-19 pandemic and due to the resultant lockdown the matter was not listed in the month of March, April and May. Thereafter, the case was heard on 17.06.2020 and the Committee directed the petitioner to submit the original Certified copy of Form no. 14 of the year 1893 and posted the matter to 18.06.2020. However, during such short period the certified copy could not be produced. However, on 25.06.2020 the petitioner filed affidavit of Ashok Kisan Kokane alongwith the certified copy of Form no. 14. However, without considering the same by the impugned order dated 25.06.2020, the Committee rejected the petitioner's application for issuance of Caste Validity Certificate.
5. The petitioner has stated in the petition that Election Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 5/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc results were declared on 26.06.2019 and as per the provisions of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, if the Caste Validity Certificate is not submitted within the period of one year from the date of Election, then such person will incur the disqualification. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking direction to extend the said time limit so as to cover the period of lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic.
6. By additional affidavit dated 11.07.2020, the petitioner again set out the genealogy and produced the Caste validity certificate dated 10.02.2012 issued in favour of Ashok Kisan Kokane.
7. The respondent no. 3 has filed affidavit-in-reply in the present petition and stated that the petitioner has not approached the Committee with clean hands and changed the genealogy submitted earlier by introducing major corrections. The petitioner has not submitted any document of her father, grandfather or great grandfather to prove the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to rely upon a document of one Bhiva Ghotikar who is having no connection with the petitioner. It is further stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner is trying to rely upon birth certificate issued in favour of the son of one Bhiva Trimbak Ghotikar, who was one of the resident of village Sansari whereas the petitioner's surname is Kokane and the name of the parental great grandfather is Bhiva Trimbak Kokane. There is no document to show relationship with Bhiva Ghotikar.
8. It is further stated that the petitioner is relying on the Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 6/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc translation of the certificate issued on 9.7.1893 made by Shri Pirjada who is not a Government approved translator. The affidavit submitted by Shri Pirjada is very vague and not sufficient to substantiate Caste validity claim of the petitioner. Caste Validity certificates issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane and Ashok Kisan Kokane are not subjected to the inquiry and vigilance Committee report and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. As far as Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of Ashok Kisan Kokane is concerned, it is stated that the same was never submitted before the Committee. The respondent no. 3 also relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (1) Mah. L.J. 431 in the matter between Anant H. Ulahalkar and another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. and in the matter between Popat Pund Vs. Division Commissioner, Nashik, 2019 DGLS (Bom.) 1668 holding that once the elected candidate failed to submit his Caste Validity Certificate within period of 12 months from the date of the declaration of the result of the Gram Panchayat, then he is liable for automatic disqualification. The said view is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Shankar Devre Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 (3) SCC 220. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has incurred automatic disqualification on completion of one year period from 26.06.2019.
9. This Court by order dated 23.07.2020, directed AGP to submit affidavit as regards whether the birth record of the parental great grandfather of the petitioner is existing or not. Accordingly, affidavit dated 28.07.2020 of Anil Vasant Daunde, the Tahasildar Nashik is filed. In the said affidavit it is stated that the old 1893 Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 7/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc register is almost damaged and is in and destroyed condition, its pages are torn in pieces and reconstruction of documents is not possible. It is further stated that he is not even in position to comment whether the Register may or may not have such record on which the petitioner relied upon. Alongwith the said affidavit, he has produced the photographs of torn condition of the said record.
10. The affidavit-in-reply dated 28.07.2020 of Sangita Niwrutti Dawkhar, Research Officer, District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik was filed. In the said affidavit, it is inter-alia stated that the vigilance report shows that original record of village form no.14 of Sansari village, Tal. Nashik of one Bhiva Trimbak Ghotikar was not found in the office of Tahsildar Nashik. The genealogy given to the Committee on 24.05.2019 and 2.12.2019, does not prove beyond doubt the relationship of the petitioner with Nana and Bhiva claimed to be her great grandfather. The village form no. 14 produced by the petitioner is forged xerox document and the same is not disclosed to the Committee.
11. It is further stated that the certificate issued in favour of Rohit cannot be relied upon as in the genealogy filed in the Rohit's case the petitioner's name is not found. The petitioner has not stated the name of Ashok Kisan Kokane in genealogy dated 24.05.2019 and 02.12.2019. The surname of Bhiva is Ghotikar and not Kokane. The petitioner had submitted photocopy of Caste Validity Certificate of Ashok Kisan Kokane in the inward and outward section of the Caste Validity office after the impugned order is passed. The petitioner has not submitted any document of her father's side regarding her claim Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 8/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc of "Kunbi" caste except village form no. 14 of Bhiva Trimbak Ghotikar. The petitioner's surname is Kokane and the documentary evidence to show relationship between Ghotikar and Kokane is not conclusive.
12. Smt. Sangita Devakar, the Research Officer and Member Secretary, District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik filed additional affidavit dated 24.08.2020. In the said affidavit it is stated that on 19.06.2020, the hearing of the matter was concluded and the case was closed for orders. On 25.06.2020, in the morning session, the order of the Committee was ready and was signed by all the members. The order was sent for dispatch immediately on 25.06.2020 and details were entered into Outward Register at Sr. No. 887. On 25.06.2020, at 5.10 p.m. the petitioner submitted application alongwith certain documents including affidavit of Shri Ashok Kokane, validity Certificate issued in favour of Shri Ashok Kokane and affidavit of translator Shri Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin. The receipt of the said documents was mentioned at inward Register entry bearing No. 2666. It is stated in the said affidavit that while passing and signing the order dated 25.06.2020 by the Committee, the aforesaid documents were not available on the record and they were produced afterwards. It is further stated that in any case the documents claimed to be "certified copy of Village Form No.14" by the Petitioner is not at all certified copy but is a mere "True copy" of some certified copy.
13. In the background of the above referred pleadings of the parties we have heard Shri Satyajit Dighe, Advocate for the Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 9/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc petitioner, Shri Sachin Gite, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Shri Yuvraj Patil, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7.
14. Shri Satyajit Dighe on behalf of the petitioner made following submissions:-
(i) The main document is birth extract issued in favour of Bhiva Trimbak Ghotikar in the year 1893 in which caste recorded is "Kunbi". Revenue record shows that Trimbak is the ancestor of the petitioner. The said document of 1893 was discarded as when the Vigilance Committee went to inspect the documents the same could not be found. However, when in 2012 the certified copy of the said document was obtained, the same was available.
(ii) Learned counsel relied on the typed copy at page no. 51 which is the entry made in Form 14 i.e. Registration of birth and death made on 9.7.1893 stating that a son was born to Bhiva Trambaka Ghotikar and in the column of the "Caste" it is mentioned as "Kunbi". He also relied on page 52 and contended that the stamp of Certified copy shown is dated 10.02.2012. He also pointed out page 53 particularly entry at Sr. No. 22 in the name of Bhiva Trambaka Ghotikar.
(iii) Learned counsel relied on Mutation Entry No. 1210 dated 23.03.1937 (page 202) mentioning that Bhiva Trambaka Kokane died on 15.05.34 at Sansari leaving behind three sons namely Gopala, Govinda and Rama. He states that Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 10/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc this information was given at village Ghoti and therefore name 'Ghotikar' is the same as 'Kokane'. He submitted that the relationship of the petitioner with Trimbaka thus tallies as per the Mutation entry. He pointed out the genealogy mentioned at page 121.
(iv) Learned counsel pointed out the observations made with respect to document dated 9.7.1893 by the Committee which is to the effect that the original certified copy of the said document is not produced before the Committee (page 35) and that when the Vigilance Committee visited the Office of Tahasildar the said document is not found (page 36). He submitted that the Committee refused to accept the certified copy as the same was submitted after conclusion of the hearing. He pointed out the affidavit dated 4.10.2019 at page 49 of Shri Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin. He relied on the certificate of validity issued in favour of Kokane Rohit Jagan (page 99) and issued in favour of Kokane Ashok Kisan (page
125). He again pointed out the genealogy at page 121 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for certificate of validity.
(v) It is submitted that on 25.06.2020 the petitioner had submitted application to take on record certain documents (page 101) including affidavit of Ashok Kisan Kokane (page
102) and affidavit of Shri Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin (page 106). He submitted that the Committee be directed to take on record the said documents.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 11/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
(vi) Thereafter, the learned counsel advanced submissions regarding prayer clause (b) seeking direction to extend the time period for submitting caste validity certificate as prescribed under Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. He submitted that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 26.06.2019. The impugned order was passed on 25.06.2020 and one year period was completed on 25.06.2020 and therefore, petitioner was automatically disqualified. He submitted that in view of the Covid pandemic and resultant lockdown, the Committee was not functioning for about four months (three months and twenty days) and therefore, the said period should be excluded while counting the one year period. He pointed out the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulahalkar and another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. (supra) and more particularly paragraph 98 and 99 of the said Judgment. He also pointed out judgment of Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1429-1430 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 2020 decided on 19.03.2020.
15. Shri Sachin Gite, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 made the following submissions:-
(i) At the outset the petitioner failed to establish any relationship between Ghotikar and Kokane. All the documents submitted by the petitioner shows Kokane as surname, however for establishing Kunbi caste the petitioner relied on the document of Ghotikar. The Mutation Entry No. 1210 dated 23 rd March, Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 12/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc 1937 on which the petitioner is relying also shows name as "Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane". There is no document to show that Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane is Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar. He further submits that just to take the advantage of Caste "Kunbi" in the record of Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar, the documents are produced. There is no document to show that the petitioner belongs to Kunbi caste. The documents relied are issued in favour of Ghotikar.
(ii) It is submitted that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He submitted that the petitioner submitted first genealogy on 24.05.2019. The respondent no. 3 raised several objections to the said geneology. To overcome the same, the second genealogy with major changes was submitted on 2.12.2019. The petitioner never submitted original certified copy of village form no. 14 of Sansari Village, Tal. & Dist. Nashik, dated 9.7.1893 but only photo copy was submitted.
(iii) Learned counsel pointed out the reasoning given in paragraph 14 of the impugned order, wherein, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has set out reasons for discarding the Caste Verification Certificate issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane, son of petitioner's cousin brother. The Caste Scrutiny Committee in the said paragraph recorded that Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane is not issued after conducting inquiry by the Vigilance Committee and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 13/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc The Caste Scrutiny Committee further observed that the said Rohit will not fall in the category of the blood relative from the paternal side of the applicant.
(iv) Learned counsel pointed out that certain documents were submitted by the petitioner on the date of the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee however after the order was passed. He submitted that even if the said documents are taken into consideration then also it would not show that petitioner belongs to the Kunbi caste. He submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned order. The affidavit of Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin is not reliable as the same is not specific and he being not a Government approved translator. He submitted that in any case the document which is mentioned in the said affidavit is issued in favour of Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar and not in favour of Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane. He pointed out Vigilance Report dated 3.01.2020 stating that the record of the said entry is not found in the Tahsildar Office.
(v) Learned counsel submitted that the Caste recorded in the School record of the petitioner is "Hindu-Maratha" and as relationship between Ghotikar and Kokane is not established, it has to be held that the petitioner has failed to prove her case.
(vi) As far as the aspect regarding Section 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, he relied on the Full Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 14/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Anant H. Ulahalkar and Another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. (supra) and more particularly relied on paragraph 98 and 99 of the said judgment. He pointed out that the said Full Bench Judgment of this Court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submitted that validation of the Caste certificate of the Elected councilor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would have no effect upon the Statutory consequences.
(vii) It is submitted that the subsequent issuance of the validity certificate would be irrelevant for the purpose of restoration of the councillors election. He submitted that in this particular case in fact the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He also relied on another judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in AIR 2020 Bombay 4. He submitted that the judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of Benedict Denis Kinny V/s. Tulip B. Miranda & Ors.(Supra) in fact reiterates the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Anant H. Ulahalkar and Another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. (supra).
(viii) It is submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee despite loss of about four months finally decided the matter within one year. As the claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, this is not the case where the prayer for extension of mandatory period of one year be granted.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 15/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
16. Shri Yuvraj Patil, learned AGP reiterated various submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. He pointed out the affidavit dated 28.7.2020 of Tahsildar Nashik and submitted that the Register is completely damaged and in destroyed condition and therefore it cannot be confirmed whether the certified copy is of the said document which the petitioner is relying upon. He submitted that the petitioner with complete knowledge that the judgment is delivered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee submitted the documents later on.
17. Mr. Dighe, learned counsel for the petitioner in re- joinder submitted that this case requires remand. He submitted that although different genealogies are submitted, the genealogy submitted at later point out time is consistent with Revenue record.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS:-
18. The pleadings of the respective parties and their submissions raise following questions for consideration of this Court in the present matter:-
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik in case no. 3809 of 2019 is legal and valid ?
(ii) Whether the petitioner was automatically disqualified in view of the petitioner not having submitted valid Caste Validity Certificate within one year of declaring elected?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for extension of time Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 16/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc period for submitting Caste Validity Certificate as prescribed under Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, in view of the Covid pandemic and consequently the Committee not functioning for about four months ?
19. Firstly, we will deal with the question regarding the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.06.2020. Before considering the rival contentions it is very important to note what should be the approach of the High Court in dealing with orders passed by the Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter between Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another V/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241 held as follows:
"15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 17/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."
Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the Committee shall prevail unless found vitiated. If the Committee by considering all the material facts records a finding and although another view is possible it is not a ground to reverse the finding. It is further very important that each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.
20. Under Section 8 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 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the burden of proving that the person belongs to such caste, tribe or class shall be on the claimant/applicant. We will examine the impugned order of the Committee by keeping in mind the aforesaid parameters.
21. The petitioner had placed before the Committee total 16 documents and all the documents were considered by the Committee and reasons were recorded about the effect of the said documents on the claim of the petitioner that she belonged to the "Kunbi" Caste. We are herein after considering the documents on which reliance is placed by both the parties while advancing their respective submissions and the document which we consider relevant.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 18/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
22. The document at Sr. No. 2 is School leaving certificate dated 1.8.2003 issued by the Head Master of the School inter-alia mentioning that the religion and caste of the petitioner is "Hindu- Maratha". The only document on which Shri Satyajit Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in this Court to show the caste of his client as Kunbi is produced at Sr. No. 13 which is the entry in the Register recording birth and death in the village (Village form no. 14) of village Mouje Sansari, Tal. Nashik. This document records that son was born on 9.7.1893 to Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar and caste is shown as "Kunbi". The said original document is in Modi script. The petitioner to prove the said document produced affidavit dated 4.10.2019 of Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin. He has stated in the affidavit that he can read Modi fluently and he has completed the course conducted by Jagtik Marathi Parishad Mumbai and was awarded certificate dated 12.12.1993. He has stated that Shri Vishnu Godse had brought to him copy of certified copy issued in 2012 to him by the Tahsildar Office. He has stated that certified copy of the said document was brought to him in 2012 and he has translated the same in 2012 and the same was brought to him for translation. The Committee has recorded that the report of Vigilance Committee dated 3.1.2020 in this behalf records that on 20.12.2019 the Vigilance Committee alongwith said translator Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin went to the office of Tahsildar, Tal. & Dist. Nashik and took search of the record, however record of such document was not found.
23. It is significant to note that although petitioner has filed her Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 19/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc detailed say/written argument dated 17.06.2020, this particular aspect that the vigilance committee alongwith said translator Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin visited the office of Tahsilar, however could not find the record of the said document is not controverted. It is further significant to note that this Court by order dated 23.07.2020 directed the learned AGP to file affidavit of Tahsildar and place on record the position of the said record. Accordingly, affidavit dated 28.07.2020 of Anil Vasant Daunde working as Tahsildar Nashik was filed. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the old Register of the year 1893 carrying the details of the village is completely damaged and in destroyed condition, its pages are torn in pieces and reconstruction of the document is not possible. He has further stated that he cannot make any statement whether the extract produced by the petitioner is as per the record or not, as the record is totally in almost destroyed condition. Thus, it is clear that the existence of document of the year 1893 on which the petitioner is relying is not conclusively established. It is also significant to note that the original certified copy was also not placed before the Committee. Therefore, the reasons given by the Committee for discarding this document are not perverse.
24. Assuming that the said 1893 document is established and genuine then also the said document records that son was born on 09.07.1893 to one Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar in the village Sansari, Tal. Nashik whereas the petitioner is from the family of Kokane and not Ghotikar. The petitioner although tried to show relationship with said Trimbaka, no conclusive document is placed on record to show the same.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 20/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
25. The record shows that the petitioner has changed from time to time the genealogy so as to show relationship with said Trimbaka. The petitioner initially gave following genealogy on 24.05.2019:-
Bhiva Trimbaka Gopala Nana Rama Ganpat Kacharu Kisan Mandakini Dattu
26. The respondent no. 3 raised objection to the above genealogy and thereafter, the petitioner made very drastic changes in the genealogy and submitted fresh genealogy on 2.12.2019. The said genealogy with drastic changes is as follows:-
Tryambak @ Trimbaka Bhiva Nana Gopala Govind Rama Ganpat Kacharu Santu Raghunath Kisan Dattu Mandakini Jagan Rohit
27. In the present writ petition the petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 11.07.2020 and in the said affidavit new Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 21/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc genealogy was set out as follows:
Trambak Kokane Bhiva (Parvatibai wife) Nana Gopala Govind Rama Ganpat (Gangubai) wife Kisan Ashok Kachru Santu Raghunath Mandakini Jagan Rohit
28. The manner in which the petitioner has made frequent drastic changes in the genealogy, clearly indicates the inconsistency in the case of the petitioner and that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands.
29. In any case inspite of changing the genealogy from time to time, the Petitioner has failed to prove that the petitioner whose surname is "Kokane" beongs to the family of "Tryambaka Ghotikar".
This aspect is very crucial as the petitioner is relying on the entry in the birth and death Register dated 9.07.1893 in favour of Bhiva Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 22/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc Tryambaka Ghotikar. For proving this, the petitioner has relied on Mutation Entry No. 1210, dated 23.03.1937. We have perused the said Mutation Entry from the original record submitted to the Committee and found that there are certain additions. The additions are of very significant nature. The original entry states that Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane died about two years back and by addition the date of death is mentioned as 15.07.1934. Another addition is by describing Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane as out of joint occupiers. It is further mentioned in the Mutation Entry that said Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane died leaving behind him Gopala, Govinda and Rama.
30. By said Mutation Entry it cannot be held that said Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane mentioned in Mutation Entry no. 1210 is the same person as Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar as mentioned in said document dated 9.07.1893. It appears that to take undue advantage of the some similarity in the names, the said Mutation Entry No. 1210 is relied upon to contend that Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar is the same person as Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane. It further appears that for the said purpose the first genealogy was changed by which name of "Nana", son of Bhiva was changed as "Govind" by the petitioner. In any case, the said Mutation Entry No. 1210 cannot conclusively prove that the petitioner was belonging to the family of Trimbaka Ghotikar, when she is admittedly from the family of Kokane. Thus there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel Shri Sachin Gite that the petitioner has failed to conclusively establish that Ghotikar and Kokane is the surname of the same family. It further appears that all the documents submitted by the petitioner shows Kokane as surname of the petitioner and merely for establishing the Kunbi Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 23/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc Caste and to take undue advantage of the said 1893 document, the petitioner is relying on the documents of Ghotikar, and contending that "Konkane" and "Ghotikar" are surnames of their family.
31. The petitioner has relied on the Caste Validity Certificate dated 15.06.2018 issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane before the Committee. The Committee in the impugned order specifically mentioned that no inquiry by Vigilance Committee was conducted while issuing the said Certificate of validity. It is significant to note that the said certificate was also issued on the basis of the said entry in the Birth and Death Register of 1893 and the same was surprisingly issued without conducting vigilance inquiry. In the present case during the Vigilance Inquiry it was found that the said record was not found, although extensive search was taken and the said search was taken in the presence of the said translator Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin. Thus, it cannot be said that the Committee has committed any illegality and perversity in not relying on the Certificate of validity issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane.
32. The petitioner after the judgment of the Committee is signed on 25.06.2020 submitted certain documents. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said documents be not taken into consideration as the same were not before the Committee when the order was passed. Learned counsel for the Respondent is right in submitting that in any case the same were produced with unclean hands alongwith application dated 25 th June, 2020 at 5.10 pm though with complete knowledge that the Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 24/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc judgment has already been passed by the committee. The said documents interalia were consisting of photo copy of validity certificate issued in favour of Ashok Kisan Kokane, affidavit dated 31.01.2012 of Ashok Kisan Kokane, photo copy of said document of 1893, affidavit of Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin and also affidavit of Ashok Kisan Kokane.
33. In the said affidavit the said Ashok Kisan Kokane has stated that he had obtained the said certified copy on 24.01.2012 and thereafter, due to flood water entering the Tahasildar Office, Nashik the record is in almost destroyed condition. In this situation, although the respondents have rightly contended that the said documents be not taken into consideration as they were submitted to the Committee after the order was passed, we have considered the same in the interest of justice. It is very important to note that the petitioner alongwith additional affidavit dated 11.07.2020 filed in this Writ Petition also produced photo copy of validity certificate issued in favour of Ashok Kisan Kokane. The petitioner's counsel fairly admitted that no vigilance inquiry was conducted while issuing the said Caste Validity Certificate. Hence no reliance can be placed on the said documents. Be that as it may even if the said documents are taken into consideration, then also it cannot be held that the petitioner has proved that petitioner belongs to the caste Kunbi.
34. The Petitioner has very heavily relied on the validity certificate issued in favour of Ashok Kisan Kokane and Rohit Jagan Konane. The counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that both these validity certificates were issued on the basis of document dated Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 25/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc 9.7.1893 of one Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, fairly pointed out that vigilance enquiry was not conducted while issuing these validity certificates. Thus no enquiry was conducted whether certified copy of document dated 9.7.1893 was issued on the basis of record or otherwise. Thus those validity certificates were issued without ascertaining the genuineness of the said document dated 9.7.1893.
35. The Petitioner before the Committee has also relied on document namely village form No. 14 showing entry of death of Parvati Bhiva Kokane wherein, the caste mentioned is "Kunbi". However, the counsel for the Petitioner has not relied on the said document while making submissions in this Writ Petition.
36. The analysis of the evidence produced by the petitioner before the Committee demonstrates following aspects:
(i) The only document on which the petitioner has relied is dated 9.07.1893 issued in favour of Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar.
(ii) The Vigilance Committee in its report dated 3.01.2020 has specifically recorded that the record of the said entry was not found in the office of the Tahasildar Nashik. The Vigilance Committee had visited the Tahasildar Office alongwith Mr. Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin who acted as Translator on behalf of the petitioner. The Vigilance Committee has recorded that even with his help the record could not be found. Neither the petitioner nor said Peerjada Hafiz Ahmed Zainuddin has denied the said statement as appearing in the Vigilance Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 26/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc Committee Report.
(iii) The Tahasildar Nashik has submitted affidavit dated 28.07.2020 stating that the 1893 Register is in completely damaged and almost destroyed condition.
(iv) Thus, the existence of document dated 9.7.1893 is not established.
(v) Admittedly said document dated 9.7.1893 is issued in favour of Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar and the petitioner is from Kokane family. The petitioner failed to establish that surname Ghotikar and Kokane is of the same family.
(vi) The reliance of the petitioner on the validatity certificate issued in favour of Rohit Jagan Kokane and Ashok Kisan Kokane is of no help as the said validity certificates are admittedly not issued after conducting Vigilance inquiry.
37. The Committee has taken into consideration all the documents and applied its mind and recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that she belongs to Kunbi Caste. The findings of the Committee being not perverse, the interference in the impugned order 28.06.2020 is not permissible.
38. We shall now deal with the second and third questions involved in this Writ Petition namely (i) whether the petitioner was automatically disqualified as councilor in view of the petitioner not having submitted the valid Caste Validity Certificate within one year Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 27/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc of being elected and (ii) whether the petitioner is entitled for extension of time period for submitting Caste Validity Certificate as prescribed under Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, in view of the Covid pandemic and the resultant lockdown, the Committee not functioning for about four months.
39. Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 mandates that every person desirous of contesting election to the office of Sarpanch reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, or Backward Class shall be required to submit alongwith the nomination paper, caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority and validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with said Act. It is further provided that if the person fails to produce the validity certificate within a period of one year (earlier six months) from the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Sarpanch. Similar provisions are made with respect to person contesting election for reserved seat for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Class Citizens in Section 9 (A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, in Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and in Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
40. The Full Bench of this Court in the Case reported in Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 28/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc 2017 (1) Mah. L.J. 431 in the matter between Anant H. Ulahalkar and Another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. has held with respect to above referred Section 9 (A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 that scheme of Section 9 (A) is a special provision and complete code. Section 9 (A) has provided for a statutory fiction, which is evident from the use of expression "his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified being a Councillor". Statutory fiction must be allowed to have its full play. It is further held in paragraph 99 as follows:
"The validation of caste claim of the elected Councillor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would have no effect upon the statutory consequences prescribed under the second proviso to section 9-A i.e. deemed retrospective termination of the election of such Councillor and his disqualification for being a Councillor. The subsequent validation or issue of the Validity Certificate will therefore be irrelevant for the purpose of restoration of the Councillor's election but, such validation will obviously entitle him to contest the election to be held on account of termination of his election and the consequent vacancy caused thereby. In the result, we hold that the time limit of twelve 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 validation of his caste claim after the stipulated period would not result in restoration of his election. The questions raised, stand answered accordingly."
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 29/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
41. The said Full Bench judgment of this Court is upheld by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2019 (3) SCC 220 in the matter between Shankar Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
42. By another Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2020 AIR (Bom.) 4, in the matter between Popat Vithal Pund and Others V/s. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik and Others wherein, it has been held that second proviso to Section 10- 1(A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is mandatory for the reasons recorded in the matter of Anant H. Ulahalkar and Another Vs. Chief Election Commission and Ors. The aforesaid judgment apply to the facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the principles laid down in these judgments.
43. Shri Satyajit Dighe, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out judgment of Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 1429-1430 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 2020 decided on 19.03.2020. The facts involved in Civil Appeal No. 1429-1430 of 2020 reveal that in that case on 23.02.2017 the respondent no. 1 was declared elected as Councillor. The Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 14.07.2017 rejected the claim of that petitioner. Immediately a writ petition was filed and by order dated 18.8.2017, interim order in favour of that petitioner was passed. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 2.4.2019 allowed the Writ petition by setting aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 14.08.207 and remanded the matter to Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. The High Court also directed that the petitioner is entitled to Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 30/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc continue in her seat, since the effect of disqualification was postponed by the interim order and the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been set aside. Subsequently, during the pendency of the said Civil Appeals the Caste Scrutiny Committee has verified the Caste of the said petitioner. The factual position in Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 2020 is almost identical except that by final order dated 02.04.2019, this Court allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and declared the petitioner in that petition as belonging to Koyari Caste.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia framed following points as arising out for consideration:-
"(i) Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ousted due to statutory Scheme of Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act?
(ii) Whether High Court had no jurisdiction to pass an interim or final order, the effect of which is to interdict the statutory fiction under Section 5B to the effect that in event the Caste Scrutiny Certificate is not submitted within six months (now twelve months) from the date of election, the election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and the candidate shall be disqualified for being Councillor?
(iii) Whether the interim order dated 18.08.2017 in Writ Petition No.2269 of 2017 staying the order dated 14.08.2017 of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to take any action of disqualification as well as the final judgment dated 02.04.2019 remanding the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee during which writ petitioner Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 31/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc was held to be entitled to continue, were the orders beyond jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and could not have been passed in view of the Statutory Scheme of Section 5B?
(iv) Whether the interim order of the High Court dated 22.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2018 directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the writ petitioner on the basis of the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order as well as the final judgment of the High Court dated 02.04.2019 allowing the writ petition and holding that writ petitioner was entitled to continue on her seat, were the orders beyond jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and could not have been passed in view of the Statutory Scheme delineated in Section 5B?"
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia recorded the following conclusions:-
"(i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts' under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a tribunal, a statutory authority or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
(ii) The Courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 32/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc citizen and they shall fail in their responsibility if they abdicate their solemn duty towards the citizens. The scope of Article 226 is very wide and can be used to remedy injustice wherever it is found.
(iii) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution overrides any contrary provision in a Statute and the power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away or abridged by any contrary provision in a Statute.
(iv) When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous. The interim order can always be passed by a High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to maintain the status quo in aid of the relief claimed so that at the time of final decision of the writ petition, the relief may not become infructuous.
(v) It is true that requirement of submission of Caste Validity Certificate within a period of one year under Section 5B of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is mandatory requirement but in the facts of the case before us before the expiry of the period of six month, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had illegally rejected the claim necessitating filing of writ petition by aggrieved persons in which writ petition the interim relief was granted by the High Court. The power of the High Court to grant an interim relief in appropriate case cannot be held to Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 33/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc be limited only for a period of one year, which was period envisaged in Section 5B for submission of the Caste Validity Certificate. No such fetter on the power of the High Court can be read by virtue of provision of Section 5B.
(vi) There is no fetter in the jurisdiction of the High Court in granting an interim order in a case where caste claim of the respondents was illegally rejected before the expiry of period of six months and the High Court granted the interim order before the expiry of the period of six months, as then prescribed.
(vii) In the facts of the present case, the deeming fiction under Section 5B of retrospective termination of the election could not come in operation due to the interim order passed by the High Court."
46. In view of the above conclusions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the points framed as follows:-
"(i) Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act does not oust the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(ii) The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can pass an order interdicting the legal fiction as contemplated under second proviso to Section 5B, provided the legal fiction had not come into operation.
Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 34/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc
(iii) The interim order dated 18.08.2017 in Writ Petition No.2269 of 2017 as well as the impugned final judgment dated 02.04.2019 were not beyond the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(iv) The interim order dated 22.08.2017 and final judgment dated 02.04.2019 in Writ Petition No.145 of 2018 were not the orders beyond the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution."
47. It is well settled that power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution of India and is basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to interfere if the injustice has resulted on account of any decision of the Constitutional Authority, Tribunal, Statutory authority or an Authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. As aforesaid the Supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can pass an order interdicting the legal fiction, provided the legal fiction had not come into operation. The provisions of the said Act particularly Section 7 (2) provides that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under the said Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any Authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
48. Shri Satyajit Dighe, learned counsel for the Petitioner rightly submitted that impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was passed almost on the last day of twelve months mandatory period and therefore, no time was left for approaching Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 35/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc this Court which is the only remedy available i.e. the constitutional remedy. Thus Petitioner's right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is violated. It is significant to note the following dates in this behalf:-
(i) 28.05.2019- The Petitioner filed application with the committee for getting the Caste Certificate validated.
(ii) 26.06.2019- The Petitioner was elected for the post of Sarpanch.
(iii) 25.06.2020- The mandatory period of one year as defined by Section 30(IA) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for submitting Caste Validity Certificate came to an end and on which date deeming provision of termination of his election came into effect.
(iv) 25.06.2020- The impugned order passed by Committee rejecting application for issuance of Caste Validity Certificate.
The above dates clearly show that there is substance in the submission of Shri Satyajit Dighe that due to this delay, right of his client to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which is very valuable constitutional right is affected.
49. However, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulharkar (supra) Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 is mandatory and therefore time limit provided therein cannot be extended. However, we are constrained to issue directions to all the Caste Scrutiny Committees to decide the matters much before the mandatory period of twelve months if the aforesaid provisions are Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 36/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc applicable. However, this will be subject to the condition that the applicant completely co-operates in disposal of the proceedings in time bound manner and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
50. We pass the following order :
(i) The Prayer clause (a) of the Writ Petition seeking direction to quash and set aside order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik in Case No. 3809 of 2019 is rejected.
(ii) All the District Caste Scrutiny Committees are directed to dispose of the matters which are covered by the mandatory period of twelve months as provided in Section 10-1A and Section 30 (1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 9 (A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, in Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of eight months subject to following conditions :
(a) The concerned successful candidate who has applied for getting caste certificate validated to convey his election result and this order to the relevant District Caste Scrutiny Committee personally or through his Advocate within a period of two weeks from the date of declaration of the result of his election and pointing out to the Committee the aforesaid time period of twelve months as provided in the aforesaid provisions with a request to expedite the hearing and to Seema ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 ::: 37/37wpl 5573 of 2020 26.10.doc complete the proceedings within the time prescribed in this judgment.
(b) The relevant District Caste Scrutiny Committee to fix tentative time table for disposal of the said case in maximum period of eight months from the above referred communication of the successful candidate to the Committee.
However while fixing the time table the Committee shall also have regard to the provisions of said Act and said Rules.
(c) The concerned successful candidate to completely co- operate in expeditious disposal of the respective proceedings before the committee and shall not take any adjournment without valid reason.
(d) It is specifically directed that in case such successful candidate fails to comply with the above directions then the time limit as fixed herein will not apply to such proceedings.
(iii) The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra is directed to circulate to all the District Caste Scrutiny Committees copy of this judgment within a period of 30 days from today.
51. This judgment will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J)
Seema
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2020 04:04:41 :::