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
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 Denotified 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
