Aruna vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 July, 2021

caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Aruna vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 July, 2021Author: Navin Sinha

Bench: Navin Sinha, R. Subhash Reddy

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4457­4458 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10675­10676 of 2020)

ARUNA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4459 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11416 of 2020)

ARUNA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant assails the dismissal of her writ petition and

the review petition by the High Court. The High Court declined
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.07.27
17:06:12 IST
Reason:

1
to interfere with the order of the District Caste Verification

Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Committee’) dated

22.10.2018. The Committee declined to verify the caste

certificate of the appellant under the proviso to Rule 14 of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De­notified

Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)

Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Rules’). The appellant, as a consequence, stood retrospectively

disqualified to hold the post of President of the Municipal

Council, Kundalwadi, under Section 9A of the Maharashtra

Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships

Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’).

3. Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant, submitted that the acceptance of her nomination

by the Returning Officer for the post of President was

unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No. 4 in Election Appeal

No. 02 of 2016 on the ground that her caste certificate dated

2
22.11.2016 was invalid. The appellant, prior to filing her

nomination had obtained the requisite caste certificate in Form

10 under Rule 6(1)(a) from the competent authority in the State

of Maharashtra. The Appellate Court upheld the validity of her

caste certificate, and left the verification of the same to the

Committee, where it was pending. The Committee upheld the

validity of the caste certificate, but erred in holding that the

certificate having been issued to a migrant from another State it

could not verify it under the proviso to Rule14. The appellant

having failed to submit the verification of the caste certificate

within the stipulated time, was declared disqualified

retrospectively under the Act.

4. Shri Marlapalle submits that the Verification Committee

erred in relying upon the proviso to Rule 14. The caste certificate

of the appellant had not been issued by an authority from

another State. The High Court failed to notice the certificate

issued to the appellant was under Rule 6 (1) (a) in Form 10, the

validity of which had been upheld both by the Appellate Court

3
and the Committee. It erroneously opined that she could not

have contested the elections on basis of a certificate issued at

Hyderabad, without a fresh Caste Certificate from the State of

Maharashtra notwithstanding that “Munnur Kapu” had been

declared an “Other Backward Caste” in Maharashtra also on

07.12.1994.

5. Shri Rahul Chitnis and Shri T.R.B. Sivakumar, learned

counsel for the State and Respondent No.4, submitted that the

Appellate Court had left the verification of her caste certificate to

the Committee. The Committee did not verify the same as having

been issued by the authorities at Hyderabad. The appellant

ought to have applied for a fresh certificate under the Rules. The

retrospective disqualification of the appellant therefore merits no

interference as she failed to submit her verified caste certificate

within the stipulated time.

6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

parties. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. Both, the

4
Committee and the High Court having posed unto themselves a

wrong question, arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The High

Court completely misdirected itself in holding that the appellant

had been issued a caste certificate under Rule 6(1)(c) and was

therefore ineligible to contest in the State of Maharashtra as she

was a migrant after the deemed date.

7. The father of the appellant was born in Nanded,

Maharashtra but migrated to Hyderabad in or about the year

1960. The appellant was born in Hyderabad and pursuant to her

marriage on 24.05.1987, she migrated from the State of Andhra

Pradesh to Maharashtra. She held a valid caste certificate issued

to her at Hyderabad as belonging to the Other Backward Caste

“Munnur Kapu”. As on the date of her migration “Munnur Kapu”

was not recognised as an Other Backward Caste in Maharashtra,

till it was so recognized on 07.12.1994. The appellant applied for

and obtained a caste certificate in Form 10, under Rule 6(1)(a)

from the Sub­Divisional Officer, Biloli, Maharashtra, as she

5
desired to contest the election for the post of President Municipal

Council. Rule 6 in the relevant extract reads as follows :­

“6. Issuance of Caste Certificate to migrated
persons. ­ (1) in case of persons migrated from
other State or Union Territories to Maharashtra
State,­
(a) The Competent Authority, if satisfied, may issue
Caste Certificate to the applicants belonging to,
Scheduled Caste in FORM­6 and in case of
Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism or De­
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes
or Other Backward Classes or Special Backward
Category in FORM­10, to an applicant who has
migrated to Maharashtra State from any other
State or Union Territory, on production of the
respective Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism or De­notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category
Certificate issued to his father or grand­father or
relative by the concerned Competent Authority of
that State;
(b) If the Competent Authority is of the opinion that
before issuing such Caste Certificate in FORM­10
to a migrated person, a detailed inquiry is
necessary, then he may do so through the
applicant’s State of origin;
(c) A Caste Certificate holder who has migrated to
the State of Maharashtra from the State of his
origin for the purpose of seeking education,
employment, etc., may be deemed to be the person
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism or De­notified Tribe
(Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribe or Other
Backward Class or Special Backward Category, as

6
 the case may be, of the State of his origin and may
be entitled to derive benefits from the State of his
origin and Union Government, but he shall not
derive any benefits from the State of Maharashtra.

Explanation. — For the purpose of sub­rule (1),
“migrant from other State” means, ­
(i) a person who has migrated to Maharashtra State
from any other State or Union Territory on or after
the deemed date;”

Rule 2 (e) defines deemed date, relevant to the appellant, as

13.10.1967.

8. The validity and genuineness of the appellant’s caste

certificate dated 22.11.2016 under Rule 6(1)(a) was upheld by the

appellate authority and the Committee. The Committee patently

erred in declining to verify her caste certificate on 22.10.2018,

based on a complete misconception of facts. The caste certificate

of the appellant dated 22.11.2016 was issued under Rule 6(1)(a)

by the competent authority of the State of Maharashtra and not

by the competent authority at Hyderabad. Rule 14 reads as

follows:

“14. Verification of Caste Certificate­Any person
desirous of availing of the benefits and concessions

7
 provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism, De­notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Categories for any of the
purposes as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall
invariably submit an application in FORM­16 with
an affidavit in FORM­3 and FORM­17 for students;
FORM­18 with an affidavit in FORM­20 with an
affidavit in FORM­3 and FORM­21 for election
purpose; or FORM­22 with an affidavit in FORM­3
and FORM­23 for other purpose, as per his
requirement, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee
for verification of his caste claim and issue of Caste
Validity Certificate, well in time:
Provided that, the Caste Certificate issued to
migrant from other State and Caste or Community
Certificates issued by Authorities of the States
other than the State of Maharashtra, shall not be
verified by such Caste Scrutiny Committee.”

9. To our mind, the conclusion of the Committee reflects a

confusion in thinking of the members of the Committee. The

Committee could not verify a caste certificate issued by a

competent authority of another State under the proviso to Rule

14. But we fail to understand, how the Committee could decline

to verify a certificate issued under Rule 6(1)(a) in the prescribed

Form 10, the validity or genuineness of which was not in issue at

all.

8
10. The appellant having been elected on 28.12.2016 was

required to submit her Caste Certificate after verification by the

Verification Committee within one year under Section 9(A) of the

Act as amended by the Maharashtra Act No. LXV of 2018 in

Section 5B with effect from 07.04.2015. In absence of the same

she stood retrospectively disqualified to her elected post of

President. Reference may appropriately be made to Benedict

Denis Kinny and Ors v. Tulip Brian Miranda and Ors, AIR

2020 SC 3050, for the mandatory nature of the disqualification in

such event.

11. The High Court committed serious error of record in

examining the claim of the appellant under Rule 6(1)(c) which

deals with migration for the purpose of education, employment

etc. based on a caste certificate from the State of origin, being

ineligible in the State of Maharashtra if the migration was after

the deemed date. The High Court grossly erred in failing to

appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from

9
the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule

6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure,

the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before

it. Furthermore, the appellant was not seeking the reserved

status for the purpose of education or employment. The High

Court arrived at a completely wrong conclusion by reason of an

erroneous appreciation of the facts. The order of the High Court

is therefore held to be unsustainable.

12. That brings us to the nature of relief to be granted to the

appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The elected tenure of the appellant comes to an end in December,

2021. In the meantime, respondent no.4 assumed the position

of the President after the disqualification of the appellant. We

are, therefore, satisfied that present is not a fit case where we

should reinstate the appellant. The relief therefore has

necessarily to be moulded to be prospective in nature, with

regard to her caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in the State of

10
Maharashtra as from 22.11.2016. The order of the High Court is

set aside and the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated.

………………………..J.
(Navin Sinha)

………………………..J.
(R. Subhash Reddy)
New Delhi,
July 27, 2021

11