Dispose of Matters Which Are Covered by Mandatory Period of Twelve Months: Bombay High Court to District Scrutiny Committee

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

Extract

The Writ Petition was filed in Bombay High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition challenged the Order of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik in this Petition.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mandakini Kachru Kokane, was the candidate for the direct post of Sarpanch of the Ghoti Gram panchayat, which was reserved for OBC candidates. In this election, Respondent no. 3 was also the candidate for the same post against the Petitioner. At the time of submission of the nomination form, the Petitioner promised that she would submit the cast certificate within one year from the date of the result. On 26/06/2019, the result of the election was declared and the Petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. As she was elected, she had to submit the caste clearance certificate. Thus she applied for the same at the District Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Committee and they inspected the matter at the office of Tahsildar. But did not find any record regarding the same. 

Due to Covid 19 pandemic and lockdown this matter didn’t get listed from March to May. Finally, the case was heard on 17-06-2020. District Scrutiny Committee directed her to submit an original certified copy of form no. 14 of the year 1893 by 18-06-2020. As it was not possible to submit it in such a short period, the Petitioner filed an affidavit of Ashok Kisan Kokane. Along with this, the Petitioner also filed a certified copy of form no. 14 by 25-06-2020. Without considering this document, the committee rejected the application filed by the Petitioner.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had all the needed documents to prove that she belonged to Kunbi. Petitioner also sought a direction to extend the period for submitting a caste certificate. On 26/06/2019, the Petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. Committee passed the Order on 25/06/2020 (the last day to submit caste validity certificate). So, the election commission disqualified the Petitioner. The reason given by the Petitioner was, extend the period of submitting the caste validity certificate because of the Covid 19 pandemic, and lockdown, the committee was not functioning for almost 4 months (3 months and 20 days).

Arguments on behalf of Respondents

Counsel on behalf of Respondents made the following submissions. He pointed to paragraph 14 of the Order given by the District Scrutiny Committee, Nasik, in that paragraph committee gave reasons for rejection of the application. Reasons were: (1) The Petitioner failed to show a relation between Ghotikar and Kokane. (2) All documents, which Petitioner submitted were of Kokane not of Ghotikar. (3) No document showed Bhiva Trimbaka Kokane was Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar. (4) There was no document to show that the Petitioner belonged to the Kunbi caste. (5) The Petitioner never submit an original certified copy of village form no. 14 of village Sansari. The Petitioner submitted the document on the date of the Order after the committee passed the Order. Counsel also submitted School leaving certificate of the petitioner, which showed the Petitioner belonged to Hindu-Maratha.

Court’s Observation

In this case, the Court identified three major questions. The first question was related to the legality and validity of the Order passed by the committee. In this issue, the Court referred to the  Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development, and Others, in this case, Court stated that until fact found vitiated, the fact recorded by the committee would prevail. Head Master of the school-issued school leaving certificate of Petitioner mentioning that the religion and caste of the Petitioner were “Hindu-Maratha. In an affidavit filed by Anil Vasant Daunde working as Tahsildar, he said that the old register of the year 1893 carrying the details of the village was damaged. So, the reconstruction of the document was not possible and it was clear that the document of 1893 was not established. As they did not place an original certified copy, the reason given by the committee for discarding this document was not perverse. In the case of Anent H. Ulahalkar and another v. Chief Election Commission and Ors, the Court explained Section 9(A) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

Judgment

The Court rejected the Petition seeking direction to set aside the Order passed by the district caste scrutiny committee on 25/06/2020. Also, directed all the District Scrutiny committee to dispose of the matter which was covered by the mandatory period of twelve months as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight months and put few conditions to the Petitioner and also direct the chief secretary of the State of Maharashtra to circulate to all the District Caste Scrutiny Committees copy of the Judgment within thirty days from date of judgment.

Click here to view the Judgement.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -