Bombay High Court
Latabai Maharu Koli Alias Latabai ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 3 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2685
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni
1 wp 7721.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7721 OF 2020
Latabai Maharu Koli @ Latabai
Chandrakant Sonawane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Shri B. R. Waramaa,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri D. R. Kale, Incharge Govt. Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.
Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate h/f Shri Yogesh B. Bolkar,
Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
Shri A. A. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 03RD DECEMBER, 2020.
FINAL ORDER :
. The petitioner assails the judgment of the Scrutiny
Committee thereby dismissing the proposal of the petitioner for
validity certificate of Tokare Koli, Scheduled Tribe.
2. Shorn off necessary details, the facts relevant for deciding
the matter are as follows :
A. The petitioner was elected as a Corporator of Municipal
Corporation, Jalgaon from the Scheduled Tribe category. The
proposal of the petitioner for validation of the tribe claim was
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
2 wp 7721.20
forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee on or about 09th July, 2018.
B. The petitioner was subsequently elected as Member of the
Legislative Assembly from Chopada constituency on or about
24.10.2019. On or about 21st November, 2019, the petitioner filed
an application before the Scrutiny Committee for withdrawal of
her proposal. On or about 25th November, 2019, objection was
raised by the respondent No. 3 to the proposal of the petitioner
on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to Tokre Koli,
scheduled tribe.
C. Notices were issued to the petitioner by the Committee.
The petitioner, it appears was insisting for deciding her
application filed for the withdrawal of the proposal. In the
interregnum, the vigilance was conducted. The vigilance report
was submitted. The petitioner was asked to file say to the
vigilance report. The petitioner did not file say to the vigilance
report. Eventually under the impugned judgment and order
dated 04.11.2020, the Committee dismissed the proposal of the
petitioner for tribe validation certificate.
3. Mr. Dhorde, the learned senior counsel to substantiate his
contention that, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to
withdraw the proceeding relies upon the judgment dated July 20,
2016 of the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at
Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6078 of 2016.
4. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that,
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
3 wp 7721.20
the vigilance cell had come to the conclusion that the Sub
Divisional Officer, Jalgaon did not possess the jurisdiction to
issue the tribe certificate as the petitioner was permanent
resident of Chopda. The learned senior counsel refers to the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a case of Rajendra
Shivram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2019(4) Mh.L.J. 721.
5. The learned senior advocate further submits that, proper
opportunity was not given to the petitioner. The respondents
objectors had not approached the Court with clean hands. They
sought directions from the Court against the Committee to
decide the proceeding and assuming that the Court has directed
the Committee to decide the proceeding, the Committee went
ahead. The respondent No. 3 suppressed the fact in his writ
petition filed seeking directions against the Committee to decide
the proceeding that the petitioner has filed an application for
withdrawal of the proceeding. The learned senior counsel relies
on the following judgments to substantiate that the respondent's
contention ought not have been considered on account of
suppression of facts.
i) V. Chandrasekaran and another Vs. Administrative Officer
and others reported in 2012(12) SCC 133.
ii) Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others Vs. Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others reported in
2013(11) SCC 531.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
4 wp 7721.20
6. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned advocate for the
respondent No. 3 and Mr. Joshi, the learned advocate for the
respondent No. 4 submit that, the petitioner is elected as
Corporator earlier and subsequently as a Member of Legislative
Assembly. Highest standards of moral conduct are expected
from such a person. The petitioner was given ample opportunity
by the Committee to prove the case. The petitioner was fully
aware that the petitioner has no case on merits, as such was
prolonging the matter intentionally. The petitioner is dishonest.
The petitioner cannot take the advantage of her own wrong. No
premium can be given to such a litigant. The vigilance also
concluded that the petitioner has played fraud. The Committee
has concurred with the findings of the vigilance officer. The
petitioner cannot turn around and take a plea of lack of
jurisdiction of the competent authority. The Committee has
decided the claim vis-a-vis the tribe of the petitioner. So it would
hardly matter whether the certificate is issued by the competent
authority or otherwise.
7. The learned incharge Government Pleader for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 supports the judgment and order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee.
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respective parties.
9. A person holding the public office and the constitutional
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
5 wp 7721.20
post is expected to maintain the highest moral standards in
public life.
10. The petitioner was elected as a Corporator on the basis of
Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained from the Sub Divisional
Officer, Jalgaon. The proposal was forwarded to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification of the tribe claim of the petitioner on
the basis of said certificate as is required under the Statute. In
the interregnum, during the pendency of the proceeding before
the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner contested the election for
Member of Legislative Assembly from Chopada constituency and
was elected on or about 24 th October, 2019. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of her proposal for
validation of the tribe claim. The said application was pending
with the Committee. On or about 25 th November, 2019, objection
was filed by the present respondent No.3 to the claim of the
petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. It appears that,
the petitioner was insisting for deciding her application for
withdrawal of the proposal for verification of the tribe claim. The
Committee did not decide the said application, but proceeded
further. Notices were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did
not file say to the vigilance report. On the contrary insisted for
deciding the application for withdrawal of the proposal. The
opportunity was given to the petitioner for filing say and
hearing. Eventually, the committee passed the impugned
judgment invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner.
11. The Full Bench of this Court in a case of Rajendra Shivram
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
6 wp 7721.20
Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) has observed thus
"Held, definition of Competent Authority provisions of section
4(2) of Act and several other provisions of Act and Rules of
2003 and 2012 make it clear that Act empowers Government to
appoint Competent Authority only for particular area. If person
no belonging to particular local area which was shown in
appointment order of Competent Authority applies to such
authority, authority was not Competent Authority as per section
2(b) of Act. As per Section 4(2) of Act, certificate issued by such
authority will be invalid. Hence, Competent Authority while
considering applications of persons who were not original
residents of area specified lack inherent jurisdiction and it was
not mere issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Object of Act
and Rules was to verify genuineness of claim made before
authority and for similar purpose, Scrutiny Committee to verify
such claims. Candidate desirous of seeking caste certificate shall
have to apply to Competent Authority having jurisdiction over
area or place to which he/she or his/her father or grandfather
originally belongs or was/is an ordinary residents or native of
that place. Except in cases where such applicants could produce
tribe certificate issued in favour of their father or grandfather
issued by Competent Authority of their original place of
residence as on date of presidential order, of their tribe."
12. The Full Bench has held that, competent authority while
considering applications of persons who were not residents of
area specified lack inherent jurisdiction and it was not mere
issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
7 wp 7721.20
13. The Committee in such a case in normal course directs the
party to obtain the tribe certificate from the competent authority.
In the present case, the vigilance officer has also observed as
under :
Þ2½ vtZnkj yrkckbZ egk# dksGh ¼dqG ckfoLdj½ irh dMhy
uko yrkckbZ panzdkar lksuo.ks ;kaps izLrkokps voyksdu dsys
vlrk R;kaps eqGxko o tUexko luQqys rk- pksiMk ft- tGxko
gs vlqu R;kauh izLrkok lkscr tkr nk[kyk lknj djrkuk
mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh tGxko Hkkx tGxko ft- tGxko ;kaP;k
dMqu tkr nk[kyk feGoysyk fnlqu ;srks- ijarq I.k vtZnkj ;akps
eqGxko o tUe xko luQqys rk- pksiMk ft- tGxko gs vlqu rs
mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh veGusj Hkkx veGusj ft tGxko ;kaP;k
dk;Z{ks=kr ;srs- vtZnkj ;kauh fu;ekus tkrhpk nk[kyk
feGfo.;klkBh mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼izkar½ veGusj ;kaps dMs
fjrlji.ks vko";d R;k dkxni=klg izdj.k lknj dj.ks
ca/kudkjd vlrkuk vtZnkj ;kauh izkar dk;kZy;kr tkrhpk
nk[kyk feGfo.kslkBh izdj.k lknj u djrk R;kauh tGxko Hkkx
tGxko ;sfFky mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼izkar½ ;kaP;k dMs izdj.k
lknj d#u tkrhpk nk[kyk feGfoys vkgs- rlsp tGxko
mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ;kauh vkiys dk;Z{ks= ulrkuk lnjpk
nk[kyk fnY;kpk fu'iUu gksrs-ß
14. There was no reason for the Committee to deviate in the
present matter. The matter is decided without say of the
petitioner to the vigilance report and without considering the
arguments. Of course, notices were issued to the petitioner, but
the petitioner was only insisting for deciding the application for
withdrawal of the proposal.
15. The contention of the petitioner that as now validity
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
8 wp 7721.20
certificate is not required, so the petitioner ought to have been
allowed to withdraw the proceeding can not be accepted as per
the provisions of the Act and the Rules in this case. The case of
Dipika W/o Sanjay Chavan and another Vs. Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik in Writ Petition No.
6078 of 2016, relied by the petitioner may not be of much
assistance to the petitioner. In the said case the Division Bench
of this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings
before the Committee but the Court was not required to discus
Section 7 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 (for short "Act of 2000") and Rule 19 of the Rules 2012
therein. Section 7 of the Act of 2000 and Rule 19 of the Rules
2012 reads thus :
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
1. ....
2. ....
7. Confiscation and cancellation of false Caste
Certificate. -
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this
Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
9 wp 7721.20
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified tribe (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category has obtained a false Caste
Certificate to the effect that either himself or his
children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the
Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call
for the record and enquire into the correctness of
such certificate and if it is of the opinion that
certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by an
order cancel and confiscate the certificate by
following such procedure as prescribed, after giving
the person concerned an opportunity of being heard,
and communicate the same to the concerned person
and the concerned authority, if any.
(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee
under this 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.
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
Rules, 2012
1. ....
2. ....
19. Complaints.
(1) Any complaint or allegation that a person to
whom a Caste Certificate has been issued, is not belonging
to the Caste or Tribe mentioned in the Certificate shall be
inquired into by the concerned Scrutiny Committee.
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
10 wp 7721.20
(2) The concerned Scrutiny Committee shall decide
all such complaints within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of the complaints. If the Scrutiny Committee
comes to the conclusion that the Caste Certificate has been
wrongly issued, it shall record its decision and such decision
of the Scrutiny Committee shall be communicated to the
Competent Authority who has issued such Caste Certificate
for taking suitable action against the applicant.
(3) The Scrutiny Committee shall also
communicate its decision to the State Government about
the wrongful issuance of the Caste Certificates for initiating
necessary action against the issuing officer under section 13
of the Act and also as per relevant disciplinary rules.
16. In the present case, the complaint was already filed before
the Committee to the tribe claim of the petitioner. In view of
that, the Committee would not have allowed the petitioner to
withdraw the proceeding.
17. The proper course that ought to have been adopted by the
Committee was to direct the petitioner to obtain the tribe
certificate from the competent authority at Amalner and
resubmit the proposal for validation. The Committee has come
to the conclusion that the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon has
issued the tribe certificate to the petitioner though is not
resident of Jalgaon.
18. It is submitted that, the original tribe certificate is with the
petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr. Dhorde, the learned
Senior Advocate that, the petitioner has obtained the tribe
::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::
11 wp 7721.20
certificate from the competent authority at Amalner on 04 th
November, 2020.
19. In the light of the above, we pass following order.
ORDER
A. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
B. The petitioner shall submit the tribe certificate issued by the competent authority i. e. Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner to the Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar within a period of seven (07) days from today.
C. On submission of the tribe certificate as directed above, the Committee shall endeavour to decide the validation proceedings of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of submission of tribe certificate by the petitioner.
D. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Dec. 20 ::: Uploaded on - 05/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2020 23:50:10 :::