Bombay High Court
Krishna Nagar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 October, 2011
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 3029 & 3288 OF 2007.
--------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 3029/2007.
Ramesh s/o Shri Rambhauji Majrikar,
Aged about 56 years, Occ - Service, resident
of 51 'Saket', S.E. Railway Layout, Ram-
Krishna Nagar, Near Pratapnagar Police
Chowki, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary, Revenue
and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificates
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
..........
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 :::
2
WRIT PETITION No. 3288/2007.
Vilas s/o Shri Rambhauji Majrikar,
Aged about 50 years, Occ - Service, resident
of 17, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary, Revenue
and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificates
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur through.
(a)Vice Chairman and Joint Commissioner,
Nagpur.
(b)Member-Secretary and Deputy Director
(R), Nagpur.
(c)Member and Research Officer, Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
--------------------------
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with
Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for both Petitioners.
Mr. V.A. Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra in both matters.
Mr. N.W. Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Scrutiny Committee and Other Respondents.
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for proposed Intervenor.
-----------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 :::
3
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
Date of reserving the Judgment. - 30.09.2011 Date of Pronouncement. - 12.10.2011 JUDGEMENT.
1. Due to limited arguments and controversy presented before us which centers around scope and relevance of 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 ( hereafter referred to as "the Act No. 23 of 2001" for short) in present matters, we state facts having bearing on it briefly. Both the petitioners are real brothers and by identical orders passed on 25/06/2007, the Caste Scrutiny Committee functioning under above Act has invalidated their caste claim and confiscated their caste certificates as belonging to Halba ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 4 scheduled tribe. It has also directed their discharge from employment and recovery of benefits derived by them because of said caste certificates. It has also authorized Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance Cell with it to lodge complaint in the form of FIR with concerned police station as per Section 11(2) for offenses punishable under Section 11(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act. It also found that action also needed to be taken against the Executive Magistrate under Section 13 of the Act No. 23 of 2001, as he issued initial certificate without due verification.
2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in both matters seeks liberty to raise issue of seniority of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3029/2007 in future if occasion therefor arises, as he has retired. In this background, he has contended that new offence or disability/disqualification, envisaged under Section 10 and Section 11 of the Act No.23 of 2001 cannot have any application in present facts, as both the petitioners had obtained their caste certificates before 1980. He points out that petitioner - Ramesh in Writ Petition No. 3029/2007 has now superannuated and he was appointed on 10.10.1979 against a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 5 reserved post for Scheduled Tribe. His younger brother Vilas who happens to be petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3288/2007 is appointed similarly on 01.10.1985. He contends that the Act No. 23 of 2001 has come into force more than 20 years after the initial certificate of caste was obtained by these petitioners. He relies upon express language used in these sections to show that word employed therein is "secures" and not "has secured". Contention is, therefore, words expressly contemplate prospective application of this statutory provisions which is also in consonance with Article 14 and Article 20 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate this contention, he is relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (1977) 3 SCC 525 (State of Maharashtra .vrs. Kaliar Koil Subramaniam Ramaswamy); (1991) 4 SCC 298 (Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai .vrs. State of Gujarat and others) and (2009) 7 SCC 404 (Ganesh Gogoi .vrs. State of Assam) where the provisions of Article 20[1] of Constitution of India have been construed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
3. Shri Thakre, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent -
State Government and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Counsel ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 6 appearing for respondent - Scrutiny Committee and other respondents have supported the directions issued by the Scrutiny Committee. Attention is invited to material looked into by it before issuing such directions. It is contended that the material demonstrates a culpable mind and therefore, the directions have been issued. Shri Sambre, learned Counsel contends that even in absence of provisions like Sections 10 and 11 of the Act No.23 of 2001, similar action is possible under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and Constitution of India. He therefore, argues that no new disability or disqualification is created by said Act and technical objection being raised are misconceived. He further contends that protection on the basis of the Government policy dated 15.06.1995 extended by the State Government is not relevant for the purpose of considering the action under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act No.23 of 2001. He therefore, prays for dismissal of both the writ petitions.
4. In reply, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe is already given up by both the petitioners and that has been accepted by the State Government by extending protection to them in terms of its policy ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 7 decision dated 15.06.1995. The conclusions drawn by the Scrutiny Committee are not final before Criminal Court and he is relying upon an un-reported order of this Court dated 01.07.2011 in Writ Petition No. 3490/2010 to which one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) was party. He also invites attention to the fact that in this order right from the year 1956-57 Halba Koshti have been recognized as belonging to Halba Scheduled tribe. He points out decision of this Court in Milind Katware -vrs- State of Maharashtra and the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the very same matter reported at 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1=AIR 2001 S.C. 393 (State of Maharashtra v. Milind Katware), to urge that there also the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the facts was pleased to extend protection to the admissions which had already become final or then to services. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 805) - (Punjab National Bank and another .vrs. Vilas Govindrao Bokade and another), is also pressed into service. In the background of the discussions therein, the learned Senior Counsel has contended that when in this position the caste certificates have been obtained prior to the year 1985 in both the matters, and thereafter, the employment has been given by the State on the basis ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 8 of those certificates, the grant of certificates or grant of employment cannot be viewed as malafide usurpation of reservation by petitioners. Necessary mens-rea in these facts is absent. He argues that this peculiar history lead to policy decision dated 15.06.1995.
Directions issued by the Scrutiny Committee under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act No. 23 of 2001 militate with this history and as the Scrutiny Committee has not recorded how petitioners were/are instrumental in bringing about this position, the said directions in both the matters deserve to be quashed.
5. Both the petitioners have given up challenge to impugned orders of the Scrutiny Committee and their services are protected by State because of its policy decision dated 15.06.1995. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2007 has also given up challenge even in relation to wrong fixation of his seniority as he has superannuated after reaching the age of superannuation with liberty to raise appropriate challenges in relation thereto if occasion arises. As he has superannuated, we grant him that liberty. Their challenges in present petitions are restricted to observations on offenses under Section 11(1)(a) and (b) and authorization under Section 11(2) of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 9 the Act No. 23 of 2001. Relevant provisions having bearing here can be conveniently quoted -
"Section 10.(1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government local authority or in any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 10
(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered from such person as an arrears of land revenue.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, Co-operative Society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 11 Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively.
Section 11. (1) Whoever-
(a) obtains a false Caste Certificate by furnishing false information or filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means; or
(b) not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category secures any benefits or appointments exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes in the Government, Local authority or any other company or corporation owned controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution, or secures admission in any educational institution against a seat exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes or is elected to any of the elective ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 12 offices of any local authority or Co-operative Society against the office reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate;
shall, on conviction, be punished, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but which may extend upto twenty thousand rupees or both.
(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a compliant, in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorized by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose."
The Division Bench of this Court in 2008 (1) Mah.L.J. 715 (Priyanka Omprakash Panwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors).
observes :--
" 7. In the State of Maharashtra, the State ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 13 Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. The Act as its long title states, "provides for the regulation of the issuance and verification of the Caste Certificates ... and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". Section 3 of the Act provides for an application for a Caste Certificate, Section 4 for the issuance of a Caste Certificate and Section 6 for the verification of Caste Certificates by the Scrutiny Committee. Under sub-section (1) of Section 7, the Scrutiny Committee is empowered suo motu or otherwise to enter into the correctness of the certificate where before or after commencement of the Act, a person not belonging to a reserved category has obtained a false Caste Certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class or Special Backward Category and the Committee is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. Under Section 8, the burden of proving a claim of belonging to a reserved ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 14 category is on the claimant-applicant. Section 10 of the Act provides that the benefit which was secured on the basis of a false Caste Certificate shall be withdrawn. Section 10 provides as follows:--".
6. In 2007 (1) Mah.L.J. 423- (Ramesh Suresh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and ors), the Full Bench of this Court has noted that -
"In the case of Dattatraya Ramrao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra and others -2003 (5) Mh.L.J. 539), before the Division Bench, the constitutional validity of section 10(4) of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 was under
consideration. The Division Bench in paragraphs 33 and 37 of the report held that the provisions in section 10(4) regarding retrospective operation for disqualification on the caste certificate being cancelled cannot be faulted with and it cannot be held to be ultra-vires the constitution. Section 10(4) ------ as a Corporator /Councillor. The State Legislature has enacted the Act which has come into force from 18th ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 15 October, 2001 and the legislating power of the State Government in enacting such a statute are unquestionable. This Full Bench also notes that the judgment in the case of Dattatraya Ramrao Thorat's case has been approved by the Full Bench in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 1109 where the issue before the Full Bench was whether the provisions contained in Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 are in conflict with the constitutional mandate articulated in Article 243-O(b) and 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution of India. It also notes following the legal position crystallized by earlier Full Bench thus:-
"12B. Thus the scheme is that a person who obtains a caste certificate has to himself apply to the Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny of his caste certificate, so that he can secure a valid certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, and it is only after the Scrutiny Committee issuing a valid certificate that the caste certificate issued in favour of the person by the competent authority becomes final. In our opinion, the scheme of sub-section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 16 (2) of section 6 is that any candidate who desires to avail of any benefit available to backward class has to get a caste certificate as also the validity certificate before he makes a claim for the benefits. But if a candidate chooses to make claim to the benefits on the basis of a tentative certificate namely a certificate issued by the competent authority, he ig takes the risk of his losing the benefits that he has claimed and obtained and also being visited with penal consequences on the refusal of the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste claim. The Act contemplates conscious decision being made by a person at the time of claiming benefits. The Legislature expects a person to claim the benefits only after obtaining the validity certificate, but the Legislature also permits a person to claim the benefits on the basis of a tentative certificate issued by the competent authority, if he is willing to take the risk mentioned above."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 17
Observations in paras 16 and 19 of the report in the case of (Mohan Parasnath Goswami v. Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certificates and others), - 2003 (5) Mh.L.J. 707, where the issue for consideration before the Division Bench was whether on declaration of the Caste Certificate being invalid and its cancellation by the Scrutiny Committee, the Councillor would be deemed to have vacated his office, and the Division Bench observed that the legislature therefore advisedly did not regard mere cancellation and invalidation of the caste certificate as a ground for disqualification but mandated that a disqualification will ensue where the invalidation and cancellation is on the ground set out by the legislature, namely that the certificate is based on a false claim or declaration by a person claiming to belong to a reserved category.
Said Division Bench also notes that an applicant for the issuance of a caste certificate must in his conduct and dealings in that regard display utmost good faith. Section 8 of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 cast the burden on the claimant applicant - (i) seeking the issuance of a caste certificate; (ii) in the inquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, Scrutiny Committee or Appellate Authority;
and (iii) in a trial of an offense under the Act of establishing that he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 18 belongs to the concerned Scheduled Caste or Tribe, De-notified or Nomadic Tribe or Other Backward Class. There is an affirmative duty on the applicant to disclose all circumstances within his knowledge which have a bearing on the legitimacy of his claim. A candidate who sets up a claim cannot be heard to say that having asserted that claim, he will leave it to the authorities to ferret out information to the contrary. Division Bench also states that there are genuine cases where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy of the members of those communities for whom benefits are reserved and the social prejudice or discrimination practiced on a systemic scale may pose serious hurdles in producing material from the remote past. Bonafide cases must evince empathy so that genuine candidates are not excluded. A suppression of fact or a failure to produce documentary material available with the candidate will sustain an inference that there was a deliberateness in his conduct to establish a false caste claim. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize that the question as to whether a caste certificate has been based on a false claim or declaration is a question which has to be decided on the basis of the documentary and other material and the surrounding circumstances of the case. Division Bench holds that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 19 the Committee which decides the question cannot be subjected to the impossible ask of probing the inner processes of the mind of the applicant. To expect the Committee to discharge an impossible function like that will defeat the purpose of the legislation. The element of deliberateness implicit in the lodgement of a false claim or declaration is hence to be deduced from the material before the Committee, the conduct of the claimant and the circumstances of the case.
7. Full Bench in Ramesh Suresh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and ors.(supra) in paragraph 19 of the judgment observes that the the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Hanmanloo Gandam v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 308, was concerned with the question whether section 10 of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 nullifies the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 and whether they operate in different areas and there is no conflict. The Division Bench referred to few judgments, including the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Parasnath Goswami (supra) and held that the scheme of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 20 2001 does not expressly or impliedly suggest withdrawal of benefits granted to persons belonging to specially backward category by the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995. Full Bench notices the following observations of this Division Bench :-
"18. In our view, if a claimant fails to substantiate and establish his caste claim because of insufficiency of evidence or lack of knowledge of traits or characteristics of his tribe, he cannot be termed as a person who has obtained and produced a false caste certificate. The phraseology 'false caste certificate' or 'a certificate obtained fraudulently' used in section 7 of the Act cannot and does not cover bonafide cases where a claimant fails to establish his caste claim. To hold that a person has obtained a 'false caste certificate' or a 'certificate fraudulently', there need to exist an element of mens rea or a guilty mind and only on the establishment of the existence of said element, that a person could be branded as one who has obtained false caste certificate. It is in this sense, that we have observed in proposition "C" above, that a person can be denied the benefit of Government ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 21 Resolution dated 15-6-1995, if he has procured the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate.
19. Ordinarily the proceedings before the Committee are for adjudication of the caste claim but in some cases, the Committee may prima facie find that the claim is false, on the ground that the certificate itself is forged or that the certificate is obtained fraudulently, etc. then in that situation, the claimant will have to be put on notice in that regard and afforded an opportunity of being heard to explain as to why the Committee should not hold the claimant guilty of producing a false, forged or fabricated certificate. Solely on the ground that the claim is invalidated, the Scrutiny Committee will not be justified in reaching a conclusion that the claimant has obtained a false certificate or he has produced a false caste certificate."
8. Full Bench in Ramesh Suresh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and ors.(supra) then proceeds :-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 22" 20. Any person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and all other categories referred to in Act No. XXIII of 2001 has to apply, in such form and in such manner as prescribed, to the Competent Authority for issue of Caste Certificate if such person is required to produce the Caste Certificate in order to claim the benefit of any reservation provided to such caste. In the Rules framed thereunder the form is prescribed wherein that person has to give various information to the Competent Authority, including the information about his father and whether the father or close relative of the applicant has obtained the caste certificate. The applicant also has to make a declaration that the information furnished by him in the application is correct and that if such information is found to be incorrect later on, he is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of sections 199, 200 and 193(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority is valid only if it is verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Validity Certificate is issued. The Caste Certificate issued by any person or authority other than the Competent Authority is invalid ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 23 per se. Under sub-section (2) of section 6 of Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, the applicant who desires to avail of the benefit or concession available to such caste has to apply to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of such Caste Certificate and the issuance of validity Certificate.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee, upon such application being made under section 6(2), inquires into the correctness of such certificate under section 7(1) and if it (Caste Scrutiny Committee) forms the opinion that the caste certificate was obtained by the applicant from the Competent Authority fraudulently, it cancels and confiscates the certificate; obviously, in accordance with the procedure prescribed and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. What is important to be noticed is that the inquiry made by the Scrutiny Committee is always into the correctness of the Certificate obtained by the applicant from the Competent Authority. The Caste Scrutiny Committee cancels such certificate or for that matter, confiscates that certificate where it is satisfied that such ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 24 certificate has been obtained fraudulently by the applicant.
Upon conjoint reading of sections 6(2) and 7(1) of Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, it becomes very clear that the Caste Certificate is cancelled and confiscated when the Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that the certificate has been obtained fraudulently by the applicant. Conversely, once the certificate obtained by the applicant from the Competent Authority is cancelled and confiscated, logically what follows from it is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the correctness of the certificate obtained from the Competent Authority; though the Caste Scrutiny Committee may not say in so many words that such certificate has been obtained fraudulently. What is important for the purposes of section 16(1C)
(a) of the M.M.C. Act is not the express finding by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the caste certificate was obtained by the applicant by making false claim or declaration, but the factum of invalidation and cancellation of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. The cancellation of caste certificate by the Scrutiny ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:16 ::: 25 Committee implies that in the opinion of the Scrutiny Committee, such certificate has been obtained fraudulently because the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee centres around the correctness of such caste certificate obtained from the Competent Authority."
25. We find ourselves in full agreement with the observations made by the Full Bench in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil that the caste validity certificate is one of the essential ingredients of the candidate being qualified to contest for the reserved seat and the other observations made in paragraphs 12A and 12B of the judgment which we have reproduced above and we need not repeat the same. It is true --------- Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. What has been said by the Full Bench in Sujit Vasant Patil's case, applies on all fours to the case under section 16(1C)(a) of the M.M.C. Act.
26.
27. The Division Bench in the case of Surendra Hanmanloo Gandam unfortunately did not notice the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sujit Vasant Patil and, thus, cannot be said to lay down good law to the extent it is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 26 inconsistent with the Full Bench judgment cited supra. The legal position highlighted by the Division Bench in the case of Mohan Parasnath Goswami, "that apart from a mere invalidation of caste certificate, an additional factor has to exist before a candidate can be regarded as being disqualified from holding electoral office viz., that the caste certificate should have been held to be invalid and must have been cancelled on the ground of the certificate having been based a false claim or declaration" and the observations made in paragraphs 11 and 16 of the judgment to the extent these are inconsistent with the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Sujit Vasant Patil stand impliedly over-ruled.
28. It is not necessary for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as we have already discussed above, to record specifically that the Caste Certificate has been obtained by the applicant by making false claim or declaration. Once the Caste Certificate obtained by the candidate under section 4 from the Competent Authority is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee under section 7(1) of Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, the implicit inference is that such certificate has been obtained by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 27 making false claim or declaration because the power of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel the caste certificate is founded on such certificate having been obtained fraudulently."
9. In Writ Petition No. 3490/2010 decided on 1.07.2010 by this Court , attention of said Bench (of which one of us- B.P. Dharmadhikari J. is member) was not invited to Full Bench view in Ramesh Suresh Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and ors. (supra). There Division Bench found that Scrutiny Committee did not record any finding as to how petitioner in that matter was himself involved in obtaining the invalidated certificate. No material casting doubt on bonafides of petitioners therein was pointed out to this Court. Said order needs to be appreciated in this background and therefore is not relevant here.
10. Perusal of provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act No. 23 of 2001 reveals that it uses the word "secures" in Section 10[1] and words "obtains" in Section 11[1][a] and "secures" in Section 11[1][b]. Section 10 contemplates case of a students who secures ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 28 admission against a reserved seat and case of a person who secures any appointment against reserved post"by producing a false caste certificate". It states that such a person, on cancellation of caste certificate is liable to be debarred from concerned educational institution or discharged from employment forthwith. Similarly other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of the said admission or appointment are to be withdrawn forthwith. Scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit is made recoverable as a arrears of land revenue under Section 10[2]. Section 11 is in two parts.
Section 11[1][a] deals with false caste certificate. It envisages a person who "obtains" a false caste certificate by furnishing false information or by filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means. Its clause [b] contemplates case of an employee who secures any benefit or appointment on post reserved for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled tribe person and also a case of student who "secures" admission in any educational institution against a reserved seat. Such a person not being a persons belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (VJ), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class or Special Backward Category, when he "secures" such benefits to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 29 which he is not entitled ,is dealt with vide this clause [b] of S.11(1).
11. Thus clause [a] constitutes mere obtaining a false certificate an offense, while clause [b] makes securing any benefit or using that certificate an offense. Clauses [a] and [b] are separated by word "or". Two independent offenses, thus are contemplated by the State and both are punishable with rigorous imprisonment, which shall not be less than 6 months and could extend to 2 years or then with a fine which may be from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. It is apparent that both the punishments i.e. punishment of imprisonment and of fine can also be imposed. It is obvious that for offense under clause [b] even date on which false caste certificate is received or obtained by such person is not relevant. Similarly, for offense under clause [a], fact whether that certificate is put to use or not, is not relevant. In other words, a certificate obtained long back can be used subsequently to secure either, admission or then employment by recipient person for himself or for his relations. If such employment or admission is gained, after coming into force of Act No. 23 of 2001, it is clear that offense under Section 11[1][b] stands committed. In that situation, the argument about prospective ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 30 effect of Act No. 23 of 2001 advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is rendered redundant.
12. Here impugned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee in case of both the brothers are dated 25.06.2007 and identical.
Orders are passed after coming into force of Act No. 23 of 2001 and after following procedure as stipulated therein. Petitioner - Ramesh had applied for verification of his tribe claim towards Halba vide application dated 16.12.2006 and tribe claim of petitioner - Vilas was referred to the Scrutiny Committee by Home Department of State Government on 08.03.1985 and it was invalidated on 19.08.1985. He had filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur as per procedure then prevailing and that appeal was dismissed on 16.01.1987. He then filed Writ Petition No. 418/1987 in this Court and this Court on 24.03.1988 set aside those orders. State Government then approached Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 4405/1989 (Civil Appeal No. 2661/1989) and the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to remit back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 02.12.2000. Accordingly verification was undertaken and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 31 impugned orders have been passed in his matter on 25.06.2007.
Representation made by the said petitioner was accepted on 06.06.2006 and he was given protection as per G.R. Dated 15.06.1995 and State Government ordered his reinstatement. The facts above clearly show that all these developments relevant for above Section 11(1)(b) have taken place after the Act No. 23 of 2001 came into force.
13. The perusal of impugned order reveals that the Scrutiny Committee gave both candidates necessary opportunity and thereafter has recorded its findings. Those findings are not in dispute before this Court. The Committee has noted that the petitioners failed to submit basic documents in support of Tribe claim and also failed to submit convincing explanation about entries showing caste of their father, paternal uncles and cousins as Koshti's.
Those entries are found prior to promulgation of the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and, therefore, have been given more probative value. The real younger brother of the petitioners avoided to give information about the education of father and vigilance enquiry through police disclosed that said father, paternal uncles ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 32 and cousins of the petitioners had their primary education at Kendriya Primary School No. 1, Sirsi, Tq. Umred. The Committee has recorded that occupation of these blood relations has been recorded as weaving between 01.02.1934 to 01.04.1954 with separate entry of caste as Koshti. The Committee has then recorded weaving as traditional occupation of people belonging to caste Koshti and a taboo among the Scheduled Tribes. As already noted above, these findings are not in dispute before us.
14. The policy decision taken by the Government on 15.06.1995 no doubt extends protection to persons like the petitioners in certain situations. Accordingly, both the petitioners have been extended that protection after coming into force Act No. 23 of 2001. The validity of that protection or then Government decision dated 15.06.1995 is not in dispute before us. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Vilas Govindrao Bokade (supra) reveals that the appeal of Bank was dismissed by separate orders by the Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The resolution dated 15.06.1995 has been looked into by both the Hon'ble Judges and thereafter the Hon'ble Justice ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 33 Sirpurkar has in para 5 observed that in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that Koshti cannot claim status of Scheduled Tribe. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court was set aside and after noticing that Milind had become Doctor about 15 years back, the Hon'ble Apex Court made the observations protecting admissions and appointments in Milind's case in paragraph 38 of its judgment. It can be seen that till Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Milind vs. State of Maharashtra and right from the year 1956-57, the High Court and State Government had been recognizing Halba Koshtis as Halba. However, it is not necessary for this Court to go into said history which is narrated at length in Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court, overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Here, the question, whether in the light of that history, the petitioners can be said to be acting or to have acted bonafide in claiming status as Scheduled Tribe for themselves, needs to be answered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom the prosecution has to begun.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 3415. After noticing the material as above, in para 37, the Scrutiny Committee has found that as per Section 10(1) of the Act No. 23 of 2011, the benefits needed to be withdrawn and hence while cancelling their caste certificates, it has pointed out that whosoever secures any appointment, against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe by prosecuting a false certificate and claiming to be belonging to such Tribe must be discharged from the said employment forthwith. It then found that obtaining false caste certificate and securing benefit on its strength are also offenses punishable under Section 11(1)(a)(b). It noted provisions of Section 11(2) of Act No. 23 of 2001 and found it necessary to authorize the Deputy Superintendent of Police in its police vigilance cell to lodge a complaint in the form of First Information Report (FIR) with concerned Police Station against the petitioners.
16. The State Government has already extended protection from discharge to both the petitioners and as already noted above, the petitioner Vilas has been specifically reinstated because of its policy decision dated 15.06.1995. Thus, the validity of later direction to lodge FIR only needs to be considered in present matter.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 35As mentioned above, offense under clause (a) and (b) of Section 11(1) are independent and distinct. Thus, even if caste certificate is obtained by the petitioners before 1985 or before 1980, if it is used to secure employment after coming into force of Act No. 23 of 2001, offense under Section 11(1)(b) can be shown to have been committed. Here, the word "secures" used in Section 11(1)(b) needs to be appropriately understood and construed. The said word is also used in Section 10(1). We will like to mention the plain dictionary meaning of word - "secure" and find out whether it means only to seek or obtain, or then something more. New Oxford advanced learner's dictionary (7th Ed.) gives its meaning as feeling happy or confident about yourself or a particular situation, certain, safe, likely to continue or be successful for long time. As a verb it means to fasten firmly, protect from harm, to obtain or achieve with lot of effort. Chamber's dictionary describes it as - "without care or anxiety, confident, free from danger, assured, affording safety, stable, firmly fixed or held, to guarantee or fasten". As a verb transitive ,it is said to mean "to make secure, safe,certain, to establish in security". Black's Law Dictionary does not give meaning of this word but describes it when it is used with words like debt, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 36 loan,bond, claim, party or transaction etc. Meaning that it implies an act or a step which helps ensure soundness (financial) or confidence can also be gathered from it. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyar (3rd Ed.,2005) quotes Webster which defines "secure" to mean "to make certain, to put beyond hazard." It also gives its meaning as "free from apprehension of distress, to inclose effectually. Yales vs. Starkey - (1951) Ch. 465 is quoted therein to show how words "an order to secure" are understood to suggest a disposition or obligation of some sort, made or entered into pursuant to the order as opposed to mere direction to pay contained in the order itself. (1959) 2 All ER 164-- Gough vs. National Coal Board is also mentioned in this Lexicon to explain that the word "secure"
means in such a state that there will be no danger from accidental falls. It also states that to secure is to make safe, to protect from danger, to insure". The word therefore derives its exact shade of meaning or colour from context in which it appears. But in all its shades, it signifies something which is firmer or more certain that mere getting or obtaining. It shows an act or step deliberately taken with an intention to continue to hold, to preserve or to protect and maintain that thing which is already obtained or gained. It ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 37 implies positive effort to get over or to cure or to remove a lacuna or deficiency which if left unattended, may prove fatal and can deprive the person of what he has gained or obtained. Thus it is an act or step to add something more in the relationship between benefit and beneficiary to further strengthen that relationship.
17. Thus, the plain dictionary meaning of word "secure"
when used as a verb is not merely an act of obtaining. It is an act by which an element of certainty or definiteness is attached to what is obtained or procured. Here, no doubt the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3029 of 2007 entered the services in 1979 and other petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3288 of 2007 has entered the services in 1985 but that entry cannot be construed to mean that service is then secured by them. Their service was/ is against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and hence always contingent upon verification of caste claim. The facts above clearly show that that exercise of verification has been completed by impugned orders in 2007. The respective petitioners had submitted their caste claims for validation to Scrutiny Committee and that exercise was going on even when Act No. 23 of 2001 came into force. In fact the petitioner in Writ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 38 Petition No. 3029 of 2007 submitted his caste claim vide application dated 16.12.2006 for verification. This submission for verification clearly shows that the petitioners secured the service obtained by them on the strength of respective caste certificates and actually used those caste certificates after coming into force of Act No. 23 of 2001. They have continued in service because of said certificates.
Thus, the certificates already issued and used to join service, have been used to again secure the service already procured by submitting the same for verification. Whether this act can be construed as an offense under Section 11(1)(b) or 11(1)(a) or both can be considered by authority with which FIR is lodged or then by the Court before which the prosecution is taken up.
18. We have made reference to only relevant facts to show that there is no question of any retrospective operation involved here. Whether the petitioners had acted with due diligence and bonafides or then there are any malafides on their part, are the questions which have bearing on determination of their intention/ mens rea. These questions, therefore, also need to be gone into by prosecuting Court as and when they fall for consideration. Merely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 39 by pointing out that certificates have been obtained prior to coming into force of Act No. 23 of 2001, the petitioners cannot contend that they have not committed any offense after its coming into force.
The judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kaliar Koil Subramaniam Ramaswamy, (supra) shows a finding by the Hon'ble Apex Court that as there was no law in force at the time when the accused was found in possession of disproportionate assets in search on 17.05.1964 under which law this possession could be said to constitute an offence, he was entitled to protection of clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and it was not permissible for trial Court to convict him of an offense under clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of Section 5 as no such clause was in existence at the relevant time. The judgment in the case of Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat (supra), shows a case where dowry death occurred prior to insertion of Section 304-B in Indian Penal Code.
The Hon'ble Apex Court noted that it is a substantive provision creating a new offense and not merely a provision effecting a change in procedure for trial of pre-existing offense. It noted that the rule of evidence to prove the offense of dowry death is contained in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of Article 20(1) of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 40 the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the view taken by High Court that the respondent accused cannot be tried and punished for an offense provided in Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. In the judgment in the case of Ganesh Gogoi vs. State of Assam, (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that charge under Section 3(5) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was framed against the appellant in respect of occurrence in September 1991 and thus said charge and its framing was inherently defective.
19. All these judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel clearly show that law not in force on the date of alleged offense was sought to be extended. Here, the use of word "secure" in Section 11(1) (b) is deliberate and needs to be understood in contrast with the word "obtains" used in Section 11(1)(a). Thus, read in contradistinction, it is apparent that the word "secures" needs to be given its normal dictionary meaning and it cannot be confined to simple act of obtaining or procuring an employment. The word "secures" as used connotes an act of doing something which gives more firmness or certainty to the employment obtained or then add ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 41 something to confirm it by removing the condition which made it either temporary or ad hoc.
20. In this situation, we do not find any case made out warranting an interference in directions issued by Scrutiny Committee. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
21. At this stage Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks continuation of interim orders which have been operating since last three years.
22. Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Counsel appearing for respondent - Scrutiny Committee as also learned APP appearing on behalf of other respondents, are strongly opposing the prayer.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 ::: 42Shri Sambre, learned Counsel states at the most a complaint, as observed by the Scrutiny Committee may be lodged against the petitioners. However, looking to the nature of controversy, we continue the interim orders for a period of 6 weeks from today and the same shall cease to operate thereafter.
JUDGE JUDGE
*Rgd/GS.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:50:17 :::