Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunanda Amsidh Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2022
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1221 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 15086 of 2021)
SUNANDA AMSIDH KOLI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
It is pointed out that respondent No. 3, though served, has not chosen to appear.
Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Prayer sought in the writ petition was to quash order dated 18.03.2020 by the second respondent-Sub- Divisional Officer, Solahpur, holding that a caste certificate held by appellant is invalid and the same is without jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned judgment further shows that the Court has taken the view that the relief claimed is completely erroneous since the SDO has not held that caste certificate is invalid as the same is without jurisdiction. Taking note of the fact that the Signature Not Verifiedappellant has already taken steps as against the lodging of Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2022.02.15 16:52:28 IST Reason: the FIR based on the order of the SDO, the Court took note of Criminal Writ Petition No. 455 of 2021 seeking to quash 1 CA No. 1221/ 2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 15086/ 2021) the same and make it clear that the impugned order will not preclude the person from pursuing the said petition.
We have heard Shri Abhay Anil Anturkar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
It is undisputed that the appellant claims to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe-Koli Mahadev Tribe. She successfully contested the election of a Sarpanch on the basis of caste certificate which is issued on 06.01.2017. A complaint came to be lodged before the second respondent alleging that the certificate was forged and fabricated. There was a notice by the second respondent to the appellant. According to the appellant, all the documents relating to the caste certificate was submitted by her to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verifying her caste claim. It is, thereafter, the impugned order is passed. The relevant part of the impugned order of the SDO reads as follows:
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………….The said certificate presented is seen to be issued by online process on 06/01/2017 with my digital signature, however, I have been appointed as Sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur Division No. 2, Solapur on 11/01/2017, Similarly, online process for issuance of certificate has commenced from 15/01/2027. Hence, after considering the said facts it is clear that Smt. Sunanda Aamsiddha Koli has presented bogus certificate of scheduled tribe (Mahadev Koli-29) during Gram Panchayat Election. Therefore, explanation presented by Smt. Koli is being rejected.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………“ 2 CA No. 1221/ 2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 15086/ 2021) It is the complaint of Shri Abhay Anil Anturkar, learned counsel, that the jurisdiction for pronouncing a certificate as fabricated is exclusively vested with the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the provisions of the Maharashtra law made in the year 2000 (Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified 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 ‘Act’)). It was pointed out that there was a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reported in Annaji Maroti Raut v. Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Vimukta Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Tribes Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nagpur and Others 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 612 taking the view that it was exclusively the Committee which is clothed with the authority to pronounce that a certificate was procured through fraudulent means. Fraud would include getting a bogus certificate. The situation obtaining is described in the order impugned before the High Court, viz., the second respondent has proceeded on the footing that the certificate relied on by the appellant was a certificate issued at the time when the second respondent is not even in office and therefore, it is a bogus certificate. Even this situation, according to the appellant, is within the 3 CA No. 1221/ 2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 15086/ 2021) exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee. He would further point out that Section 11 of the Act makes it clear that it is only on a complaint by the Scrutiny Committee or by a duly authorised officer that prosecution under Section 11 can be set in motion. However, without any authority, the second respondent has, in the order impugned before the High Court, directed initiation of action under Section 11.
This was clearly unauthorised. The Division Bench ought to have looked into this aspect, he contends.
Per contra, Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-State, submitted that this is a clear case where it is self-evident, on facts, as the officer has noted that the certificate under his signature was issued at the time when he had not even assumed office. Therefore, nothing more is required. He would point out that it is well within the domain of the SDO-the second respondent to direct initiation of action under the other provisions, that is, at any rate under criminal law for offences involved in procuring the certificate in the manner described in the impugned order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we may notice the following features.
Section 11 of the Act undoubtedly contemplates prosecution thereunder on the basis of a complaint in writing by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other Officer duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose. 4 CA No. 1221/ 2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 15086/ 2021) The SDO on noticing what happened, according to him, directed action to be taken inter alia under Section 11. An FIR stands lodged. It is the subject matter of independent challenge at the hands of the appellant. In such circumstances, firstly, we would leave it open to the appellant to urge in the said proceeding that lodging of an FIR may not be maintainable if it is not supportable with reference to Section 11 of the Act. Secondly, as regards the contention of the appellant that under the law, it is the Scrutiny Committee, which alone can look into questions of fraud in the matter of obtaining a certificate and that, it would also include the situation which is noticed by the SDO in this case, we would only observe that since the Scrutiny Committee is seized of the matter, the Scrutiny Committee will be free to take a decision in the matter regarding her caste status on the basis of all materials before it.
With these observations, the appeal will stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ] ……………………………………………………………………., J.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ] New Delhi;
February 08, 2022.
5 CA No. 1221/ 2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 15086/ 2021) ITEM NO.15 Court 10 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 1221/2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 15086/2021) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-08-2021 in WP No. 2405/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay) SUNANDA AMSIDH KOLI Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With IA No. 127746/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION and IA No. 121263/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 639/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 121267/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 637/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 08-02-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. Harshvarshan Suryavanshi, Adv. Ms. Bhavya Pande, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv.
Dr. R.R. Deshpande and Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal will stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed order is placed on the file.]
6