The ‘war’ in this case is over the validity of a No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch (Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. However, there is a ‘battle’ within, which entirely determines the result of the war. It is on the validity of the membership of Appellant No. 1 – Sudhir Vilas Kalel in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be carried by not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who are entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the Appellant No. 1 was entitled to ‘Sit’ as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 cannot ‘Stand’, to deploy a Denningesque phrase. The High Court has found against the appellants. Aggrieved, they are before us in appeal.
2024 INSC 90
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2024
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23017 OF 2023)
SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS. …Appellant (s)
Versus
BAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS. ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The ‘war’ in this case is over the validity of a No
Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 – Sushila
Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch (Village head) of Jambulani
Gram Panchayat. However, there is a ‘battle’ within, which
entirely determines the result of the war. It is on the validity
of the membership of Appellant No. 1 – Sudhir Vilas Kalel
in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be
1
carried by not less than three-fourth of the total number of
members who are entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the
Appellant No. 1 was entitled to ‘Sit’ as a member on
19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion against
Appellant No.2 cannot ‘Stand’, to deploy a Denningesque phrase. The High Court has found against the
appellants. Aggrieved, they are before us in appeal.
3. Was the Appellant No.1, in law, a member of the Panchayat,
entitling him to vote, is the question that arises for
consideration in this case. Is the Appellant No. 1 covered by
the protective umbrella under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village
Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act,
2023 [hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Extension
Act, 2023”]? If the answer is in the affirmative, the election
of the Appellant No. 1 as a reserved Member in the election
of the Gram Panchayat of Village Jambulani would stand
2
validated. Consequently, the No Confidence Motion
expressing No Confidence in the Appellant No. 2 – Sushila
Sitaram Kalel (the Sarpanch) would also stand nullified. If
Appellant No. 1 is held not to be entitled to the benefit of
Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, then he
would be deemed to have vacated his seat and consequently,
the No Confidence Motion would stand carried. For a fuller
understanding, the background facts and the statutory
regime need to be set out in some detail.
Brief facts and the Legislative Regime:
4. On 30.12.2020, the Appellant No. 1 filed his nomination
papers for contesting elections as a Member of the
Panchayat of Village Jambulani, District Satara on a seat
reserved for the OBC category. As early as on 03.02.2013
itself, the Appellant No. 1 was issued a Caste Certificate by
the Sub Divisional Officer, District Satara certifying that he
belongs to ‘Lonari’ Caste which is an Other Backward
Class. He had on the same day of filing his nomination
3
papers i.e. on 30.12.2020 applied for a Validity Certificate.
This Validity Certificate is an essential requirement under
the 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 the “Caste
Certificate Act, 2000”]. There are elaborate rules framed
under this Act which will be discussed later in the judgment.
5. Under Section 3 of this Act, any person belonging to Other
Backward Class for the purpose of contesting for any
elective post in any local authority, should apply in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the
Competent Authority for the issuance of a Caste Certificate.
Under Section 4 of this Act, the Competent Authority is
entitled to issue a Caste Certificate. This is a Certificate
which the Appellant No. 1 possessed on 03.02.2013.
However, this alone is not conclusive. Under Section 4(2),
4
the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority
would be valid subject to the verification and grant of
Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Under
Section 6 of this Act, the Government is authorized to
constitute a Scrutiny Committee and prescribe the area of its
jurisdiction. Under Section 6(2) of this Act, after obtaining
the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any
person, desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions
provided to the said caste, is authorized to make an
application, well in time, in such form and in such manner
as may be prescribed to the concerned Scrutiny Committee
for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of a
Validity Certificate. Under Section 6(4) of this Act, the
Scrutiny Committee was to follow such procedure for
verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the time
limit for verification and grant of Validity Certificate as
prescribed.
5
6. The Rules called the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the “2012
Rules”] have been framed. Rule 11 prescribes the
constitution of the Scrutiny Committee. Rule 14 sets out that
any person desirous of availing of the benefits and
concessions provided to the reserved category shall submit
an application in the prescribed form with an affidavit to the
concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste
claim and issuance of Caste Validity Certificate well in time.
Rule 15 mandates that the application for verification of
Caste Certificate under Rule 14 shall be filed or submitted
well in time in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed in Rule 17. Further Rule 16 provides for the
information to be supplied by the applicant. It states that to
enable the Scrutiny Committee to decide the application
6
expeditiously, the documents/information set out therein,
was to be produced. Apart from setting out certain
documents, sub-clause (f) provides for the furnishing of
other relevant evidence, if any, subject to admissibility.
Explanation 2 of Rule 16 speaks of the applicant
undertaking the production of original documents as and
when required by the Scrutiny Committee.
7. Rule 17, which prescribes the procedure of Scrutiny
Committee, is significant for this case. Sub-Rules 1 to SubRules 3 of Rule 17 are extracted herein below:
“17 (1) On receipt of application, the Scrutiny Committee
shall ensure that the application and the information
supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to carry
out scrutiny of the application.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
the claimant or applicant or complainant shall be
personally responsible for removal of objections raised
by Scrutiny Committee, if any, within two weeks or
within such extended period, which shall not be more
than six weeks, failing which the claim or application or
complaint shall be disposed of, by appreciating available
records and such decision may be communicated to the
applicant by the Scrutiny Committee.
7
(3) The incomplete application may be rejected by
recording reasons.”
8. As is clear from the above, Rule 17 (2) states that applicant
was personally responsible for removal of objections raised
by the Scrutiny Committee within the time prescribed. SubRule 3 of Rule 17 categorically states that incomplete
application may be rejected by recording reasons.
9. For the purpose of adjudicating this case, alongside the
above statutes, certain provisions of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the
“Panchayats Act”] which come into play, need to be set out
and analyzed. Section 10-1A, reads as follows:
"10-1A. Person contesting election for reserved seat to
submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate. -
Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat
reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as
the case may be, Backward Class of Citizens, shall be
required to submit, alongwith the nomination paper,
Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and
the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee
in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes
8
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000:
Provided that, for the General or by-elections for
which the last date of filing of nomination falls on or
before the 31st December 20231
, in accordance with the
election programme declared by the State Election
Commission, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before
the date of filing of the nomination papers but who has
not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing
of the nomination papers shall submit, along with the
nomination papers, -
(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to
the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity
Certificate or any other proof of having made such
application to the Scrutiny Committee; and
(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period
of twelve months from the date on which he is
declared elected, the Validity Certificate issued by
the Scrutiny Committee:
Provided further that, if such person fails to produce
the Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months
from the date on which he is declared elected, his election
shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
and he shall be disqualified for being a member.''
A similar provision in the form of Section 30(1A) exists for
persons contesting for the reserved office of Sarpanch.
1 (This date was originally 28.02.2021, at the time of the election in question)
9
10. In view of the above provision, every person desirous of
contesting election to a membership in the reserved
category, shall submit alongwith the nomination paper,
Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the
Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in
accordance with Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The proviso
sets out that for elections for which the last date of filing of
nomination fell on or before the date prescribed in the
proviso, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before
the date of filing of the nomination papers but who has not
yet received the Validity Certificate shall submit, along with
the nomination papers, an undertaking that he shall submit
the same, within a period of twelve months from the date on
which he is declared elected. The further proviso sets out
that if such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate
within a period of twelve months from the date on which he
is declared elected, his election shall be deemed to have
10
been terminated retrospectively and the person was to be
disqualified for being a member.
11. In pari materia provision exists in the Maharashtra
Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial
Townships Act, 1965 in the form of Section 9A therein.
12. A raging legal debate arose in Maharashtra about the nature
of these provisions – are they mandatory or are they
directory? The issue was settled by a Full Bench of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Anant H. Ulahalkar &
Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. [2017 (1)
Mh.L.J. 431]. This judgment of the Full Bench was
affirmed by this Court in the case of Shankar S/o
Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others.[ (2019) 3 SCC 220].
13. There were earlier divergent views in the High Court. The
parties contending that the provisions were “directory”,
primarily argued that the time taken for disposal by the
Scrutiny Committee was not in their control. According to
11
them, as long as the Validity Certificate was produced
within a reasonable time, the strict time limit provided in the
statute should be construed as directory and that elections
should not be invalidated for the said reason. On the other
hand, the proponents of the theory that the provision was
mandatory contended that the statute is couched in
mandatory terms, with the use of the word ‘shall’ and that
consequences had been provided for non-compliance. The
Full Bench, after considering the statutory provision and the
decided cases, in para 45 and 46 of the judgment first held
the following:
“45. In case of Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), the Full Bench
of this Court, in the context of inter play between similar
Municipal Legislations and the Caste Act, 2000, has held
that the legislature expects a person to claim benefit of
contesting to a reserved post only after obtaining Validity
Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, though it also
permits a person to claim such benefit on the basis of a
tentative caste certificate issued by the Competent
Authority, if such a person is willing to take the risk.
Such reasoning is reflected in paragraphs 12A, 12B and
12C. Since paragraph 12B is most relevant, it is
transcribed below for reference of convenience:—
12
“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 subsection (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 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. In our opinion, therefore, the validity
certificate is one of the essential ingredient of the
candidate being qualified to contest for the reserved
seat….”
(emphasis supplied)
46. According to Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), therefore, a
person who seeks to contest election to reserved posts
without compliance with the general rule of producing
13
Validity Certificate along with nomination papers, ‘takes
a risk’. The first proviso to section 9-A, in such a case,
makes this position quite clear by requiring such person
to furnish a statutory undertaking to produce Validity
Certificate within six months from the date of election.
The second proviso, in terms, provides for consequence
in case of breach. Such person, having taken the risk, cannot, in the absence of any ambiguity in the provision, be
permitted to wriggle out from the consequences of breach
so clearly and statutorily provided in the provision itself.
Otherwise, such person, will avail of a conditional concession, without, fulfilling the condition subject to
which such concession came to be granted in the
first place by the provision.”
The Legislature expects a person claiming the benefit of
contesting in a reserved post to be in possession of both the
Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate at the time of
filing the nomination. The allowance to contest by
submitting the Caste Certificate alone was with the
undertaking that he would produce the Validity Certificate
within the stipulated time, and this was the risk that the
candidate was taking. It was a ‘risk’ because a Validity
Certificate which he ought to have ordinarily possessed on
the date of nomination being unavailable, he or she is
granted the concession of contesting, subject to the
14
undertaking. In the event of non-production within the
stipulated time, even an elected candidate would
automatically stand disqualified.
14. Thereafter, the Full Bench went on to hold as follows in para
80 and 81, while construing the nature of the time limit for
production of the Validity Certificate, as it then stood.
“80. ...If the legislature, for a limited period of time,
taking into consideration pendency of applications for
issuance of Validity Certificate before the Scrutiny
Committee grants some exemptions or concession to
persons who have applied for issue of Validity Certificate
before the date of filing nomination papers, but who have
not received such Validity Certificate on the date of filing
of nomination papers, subject to such persons producing
the Validity Certificate “within period of six months from
the date of election”, there is no reason to treat the
stipulation as to time has (sic.) merely directory and
thereby enlarge or extend the exemption or the
concession granted by the legislature.
81. If, the intention of the legislature was to grant
exemption from the requirement of producing Validity
Certificate, until, the elected candidate's application is
disposed of by the Scrutiny Committee, nothing
prevented the legislature from saying so expressly or at
least by necessary implication. Instead, in this case, and
perhaps, for good reason, the legislature has consciously
deemed it appropriate to insist that the person submits an
undertaking that he shall produce the Validity Certificate
15
within six months and further, the legislature, in clear,
unambiguous and express terms has provided that upon
the failure of such person to produce the Validity
Certificate within six months from the date of election,
his election shall be deemed to have been retrospectively
terminated and he shall be disqualified for being a
Councillor. If, the stipulation as to time is construed as
directory, then, the legislative intent, so clearly expressed,
will be defeated. The significant portions of the provision
will be rendered a mere surplusage. In essence, this Court
would be rewriting the statute on the basis of its own
value judgments or notions of equity and inequity.”
After holding that the provision is mandatory, the Full
Bench held that failure to produce the Validity Certificate
from the Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated time
would mean that the election was deemed to have been
terminated retrospectively and the person was to be
disqualified. It also held that retrospective termination of the
election and disqualification were automatic in the
following words:-
“98. In the present case also the legislature in enacting
section 9-A has provided for a statutory fiction, which is
evident from the use of expression “his election shall be
deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he
shall be disqualified being a Councillor”. The statutory
fiction must be allowed to have its full play. No other
16
provision or reason has been pointed out to take the view
that consequences prescribed under second proviso to
section 9-A are not automatic or would require any
further adjudication once it is established that the person
elected has failed to produce the Validity Certificate
within a stipulated period of six months from the date of
his election.
99. The validation of caste claim of the elected
Councillor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the
prescribed period would have no effect upon the statutory
consequences prescribed under the second proviso to
section 9-A i.e. deemed retrospective termination of the
election of such Councillor and his disqualification for
being a Councillor. The subsequent validation or issue of
the Validity Certificate will therefore be irrelevant for the
purpose of restoration of the Councillor's election but,
such validation will obviously entitle him to contest the
election to be held on account of termination of his
election and the consequent vacancy caused thereby.
100. In the result, we hold that the time limit of six
months prescribed in the two provisos to section 9-A of
the said Act, within which an elected person is required to
produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny
Committee is mandatory.”
Further, in terms of second proviso to section 9-A
if a person fails to produce Validity Certificate within a
period of six months from the date on which he is
elected, his election shall be deemed to have been
terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for
being a Councillor.
Such retrospective termination of his election and
disqualification for being a Councillor would be
automatic and validation of his caste claim after the
17
stipulated period would not result in restoration of his
election.
The questions raised, stand answered accordingly.”
15. This statutory background is essential to interpret the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023. To consider whether the
Appellant No. 1 is entitled to the protection of the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023, it is necessary to
recapitulate the facts of the present case. The Appellant No.
1 obtained his Caste Certificate on 03.02.2013. Only on
30.12.2020 (the date of his nomination) he submitted an
application for the Validity Certificate to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee. At the time of filing of his nomination, he also
filed an undertaking that he will produce the Caste Validity
Certificate within twelve months from the date of his
election. On 18.01.2021, the elections were held and on
21.01.2021, the results were declared and the Appellant No.
1 was declared elected. The twelve months period expired
on 20.01.2022.
18
16. On 30.12.2020, when he filed the application online to the
Scrutiny Committee for obtaining the Validity Certificate, a
receipt was issued to him. In the receipt, the following
endorsement appears:-
“I have been informed that, within seven days will file
declaration otherwise the matter should be closed.”
Thereafter, it is undisputed that on 01-03/04/2021, the
District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Satara
made the following order. This order also covered the case
of the Appellant No. 1 along with 3013 other applicants. The
order reads as under:
“As per above read No 1 the intended contestants of the
elections of Local Bodies. Municipal Councils,
Municipal Corporations have submitted their application
for their cast certificates with the office of the
Committee. As per the read No 2 and 3 above the elected
candidates in local bodies, municipal councils and
corporations from reserved seats, have to submit their
cast verification certificate within one year from the
election.
As per read No. 4 above notification regarding decision
of the election dtd 23.03.2021 of Collector (Election
Branch) and as per the notification submitted by the
elected candidates the committee scrutinized that,
19
whether these applicants are elected in such elections or
not? After scrutiny it found that, these applicant
candidates have not been elected in the elections from the
reserve seats. As such elected candidates have not filed
the notification of elected candidates in time, this office
cannot take decision in this regard. Hence this proposal
has been filed as per the provisions of Rules 17(2)(3) of
Maharashtra Rules of verification of caste certificate SC,
ST, OBC, Spl BC 2012.”
It is clear from the operative portion of the order that since
the elected candidates have not submitted the notification of
being elected, in time, the office was not able to take any
decision in that regard. In view of that, the proposal was
‘filed’ as per the provisions of Rule 17 (2)(3) of the 2012
Rules.
17. Before we take up for consideration the interpretation of
Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, one
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the
case of Mandakani Kachru Kokane alias Mandakani
Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2021 (3)
Mh.L.J. 221] needs to be referred to. In the said judgment,
20
in para 48, 49, 50(ii) and 50(iii), the following significant
directions were issued:
“48. Shri Satyajit Dighe, learned counsel for the
Petitioner rightly submitted that impugned order of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee was passed almost on the last
day of twelve months mandatory period and therefore, no
time was left for approaching this Court which is the only
remedy available i.e. the constitutional remedy. Thus
Petitioner's right to approach this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is violated….
49. However, in view of the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulharkar
(supra) Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, 1958 is mandatory and therefore time
limit provided therein cannot be extended. However, we
are constrained to issue directions to all the Caste
Scrutiny Committees to decide the matters much before
the mandatory period of twelve months if the aforesaid
provisions are applicable. However, this will be subject to
the condition that the applicant completely co-operates in
disposal of the proceedings in time bound manner and do
not seek unnecessary adjournments.
50. (ii) All the District Caste Scrutiny Committees are
directed to dispose of the matters which are covered by
the mandatory period of twelve months as provided in
Section 10-1A and Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 9A of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965, in Section 5-B of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Section 5-
B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as
21
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period
of eight months subject to following conditions:
(a) The concerned successful candidate who has applied
for getting caste certificate validated to convey his
election result and this order to the relevant District Caste
Scrutiny Committee personally or through his Advocate
within a period of two weeks from the date of declaration
of the result of his election and pointing out to the
Committee the aforesaid time period of twelve months as
provided in the aforesaid provisions with a request to
expedite the hearing and to complete the proceedings
within the time prescribed in this judgment.
(b) The relevant District Caste Scrutiny Committee to fix
tentative time table for disposal of the said case in
maximum period of eight months from the above referred
communication of the successful candidate to the
Committee. However while fixing the time table the
Committee shall also have regard to the provisions of
said Act and said Rules.
(c) The concerned successful candidate to completely
cooperate in expeditious disposal of the respective
proceedings before the committee and shall not take any
adjournment without valid reason.
(d) It is specifically directed that in case such successful
candidate fails to comply with the above directions then
the time limit as fixed herein will not apply to such
proceedings.
(iii) The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra is
directed to circulate to all the District Caste Scrutiny
22
Committees copy of this judgment within a period of 30
days from today.”
It is obvious from the above directions issued on 27th
October, 2020 (well before the Appellant No. 1 filed the
application for the Validity Certificate on 30.12.2020) that
within two weeks from the declaration of the result the
successful candidate from the reserved seats was obligated
to convey his election result and the order and the judgment
of the High Court to the relevant Caste Scrutiny Committee.
The candidate was also to point out the aforesaid time limit
and request for an expeditious hearing and completion of
proceeding within the said period. It is further clear that the
Scrutiny Committee was to fix a tentative time table and
dispose of the said application within a maximum period of
eight months from the date of the aforesaid communication.
The successful candidate was to co-operate in the
expeditious disposal of the respective proceedings. Most
importantly, it was specifically directed that in case the
23
successful candidate failed to comply with the directions,
then the time limit fixed therein will not apply to such
proceedings.
18. It is also the understanding of the Appellant No. 1, as
evident from the undertaking furnished along with his
second application on 14.06.2023, which is in the following
terms:
“I, Applicant – Sudhir Vilas Kalel respectfully submitting
this
I applicant Sudhir Vilas Kalel submitting my request
application that, I contested the election of
Grampanchayat Jambhulni, Tal Man in the year 2020 and
I am elected in the said election. In that respect Ld.
Election Officer, Tal Man has given me declaration/letter
to me. Due to some reasons, I could not submit the same
within time and therefore my proposal has been rejected
by the Committee.
That today on 14.07.2023, I am again submitting my
fresh proposal and accepting the responsibilities for
delay. I am solely responsible for the delay caused. You
are kindly requested to accept my proposal and please
issue me the Caste Validity Certificate at your earliest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. No doubt, on this application which is filed on 14.06.2023
(filed long after the submission of his nomination on
24
30.12.2020), he obtained the Validity Certificate on
12.07.2023.
20. In this background we need to examine whether the
validation under Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023 applies to the case of the Appellant No. 1. The
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension
Act, 2023, along with its Statement of Objects and Reasons,
are set out and analyzed in the later part of the judgment.
21. A factual aspect that needs to be noticed is that on
26.05.2023, the Tehsildar forwarded a report to the
Respondent No.11 - District Collector, Satara informing that
the Appellant No. 1 Sudhir Vilas Kalel has failed to produce
his Caste Validity Certificate within the prescribed time as
per Section 10(1A) of the Panchayats Act.
Proceedings arising from the No Confidence Motion
22. On 13.06.2023, eight Members moved a No Confidence
Motion against Appellant No. 2-Sushila Sitaram Kalel,
expressing No Confidence in her being the Sarpanch. The
25
eight Respondents herein voted in favour of the No
Confidence Motion. If Appellant No.1 was entitled to sit, the
total number of members would be eleven and eight
members voting would only constitute 72.73%. If the
Appellant No.1 was not entitled to sit, then the total number
of members would be ten and eight members voting would
constitute 80%. On 19.06.2023, on the ground that there was
absence of minimum three-fourth of the Members voting in
favour of the motion, the No Confidence Motion was
ordered as rejected. The relevant part of Section 35 of the
Panchayats Act which deals with the process of No
Confidence Motion is extracted below:
“35. Motion of no confidence. –
(1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by not less
than two third of the total number of the members who
are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any
meeting of the panchayat against the Sarpanch or the
Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the
Tahsildar as may be prescribed. Such notice once given
shall not be withdrawn.
(2) Within seven days from the date of receipt by him of
the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahasildar, shall
convene a special meeting of the panchayat at a time to
26
be appointed by him and he shall preside over such
meeting. At such special meeting, the Sarpanch or the
Upa- Sarpanch against whom the motion of no
confidence is moved shall have a right to speak or
otherwise to take part in the proceedings at the meeting
including the right to vote.
(3) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than
three-fourth of the total number of the members who are
for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting
of the panchayat or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may
be, shall forthwith stop exercising all the powers and
perform all the functions and duties of the office and
thereupon such powers, functions and duties shall vest in
the Upa-Sarpanch in case the motion is carried out
against the Sarpanch; and in case the motion is carried
out against both the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, in such
officer, not below the rank of Extension Officer, as may
be authorised by the Block Development Officer, till the
dispute, if any, referred to under sub-section (3B)
is decided: …”
23. On 23.06.2023, respondents no. 1 to 8 filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court praying that the No Confidence
Motion against Appellant No. 2 be declared to be duly and
validly carried, and for consequential directions directing
the Appellant No. 2 to forthwith stop exercising all the
powers, functions and duties as the Sarpanch. Further
directions for declaring election to the post of Sarpanch
were also prayed.
27
24. On 12.07.2023, the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Satara granted the Caste Validity Certificate to
the Appellant No. 1.
25. By its judgment of 20.09.2023, which is impugned herein,
the Division Bench of the High Court made rule absolute in
terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the Writ. Prayer (a) and (b) of
the Writ is as under:
(a) By suitable writ, order or direction this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the no
confidence motion against the present Respondent No. 3
moved by the Petitioners on 13/06/2023 has been duly and
validly carried with the requisite majority in the special
meeting conveyed by the Respondent No. 2 and held on
19/06/2023 and consequently the direction be issued to the
Respondents that the Respondent No. 3 shall forthwith
stop exercising all the powers, functions and duties as the
Sarpanch in the village Panchayat Jambulani Taluka Man,
District Satara and thereafter, further direction be issued to
the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 6 – the
Collector to declare the election for the post of the village
Sarpanch for electing the new Sarpanch in the said Village
Panchayat.
(b) By suitable writ, order or direction the declaration
made by the Respondent No. 2 in the special meeting held
on 19/06/2023 and as recorded in the minutes of the said
meeting declaring that the no confidence motion against
the Respondent No. 3 has failed be quashed and set aside.
Questions for Consideration:
28
26. In this scenario, the questions that arise for consideration
are as follows:
a. Whether Appellant No. 1 is entitled to the protection
of Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023?
b. Whether the proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the
No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 as
not carried for want of the requisite votes is tenable?
Contentions
27. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned advocate (since
designated as a senior counsel) for the appellants and Mr.
Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the Respondent
nos. 1 to 8 as well as Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned counsel
for the official respondents. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned
advocate vehemently contends that the application filed
before the Scrutiny Committee on 30.12.2020 has not been
rejected. According to the learned counsel, the order dated
01-03/04.2021 cannot be construed as a rejection; that his
29
application was pending and the filing done on 14.06.2023
was only a re-filing after curing the defects. In view of the
same, according to the learned counsel, the Appellant No.1
is entitled to the benefit of the validation provision under
Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. Learned
counsel contends that under Section 35(3) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, a No Confidence
Motion has to be carried by a majority of not less than threefourth of total number of Members who are for the time
being entitled to sit and vote. Hence, submits the learned
counsel, that the requisite majority of nine votes was not
obtained.
28. In response, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel and
Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent
authorities, have contended that the Appellant No. 1 is not
entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Temporary
Extension Act, 2023 as that Section will apply only to a
person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for
30
verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing
the nomination papers and who is elected on the reserved
seat but whose application is pending before the Scrutiny
Committee on 10.07.2023, the date of commencement of the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023. It is only to those persons
the benefit of submission of the Validity Certificate within
twelve months from 10.07.2023 is made available.
According to them, it is only that person’s election which
may have been terminated or deemed to have been
terminated for not submitting the Validity Certificate would
be protected by the deeming provisions which enabled the
individual to continue to be a Member or Sarpanch. They
further contended that the impugned order warrants no
interference as it has been rightly held that on account of the
conduct of the Appellant No. 1 in not furnishing the
declaration as undertaken and as required, he is deemed to
be automatically disqualified with retrospective effect from
the date of his election. Since the No Confidence Motion
31
was carried with eight Members out of ten, who were
entitled to sit and vote, the rejection of No Confidence
Motion was illegal.
Discussion and findings:
29. Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 read
as under:-
“3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections
10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act and sections 12A, 42 and 67 of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for
contesting General or bye-elections to the Village
Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
which were held on or after 1st January 2021 and till the
date of commencement of this Act,—
(a) a person, who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee
for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of
filing of the nomination papers and who is elected on the
reserved seat of a member or Sarpanch of Village
Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or
member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, but whose
application is pending before the Scrutiny Committee on
the date of commencement of this Act, shall submit his
Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months
from the date of commencement of this Act ;
And
(b) a person, whose election has been terminated or
deemed to have been terminated or a person who is
disqualified for being a member or Sarpanch of Village
Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or
member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for not
32
submitting the Validity Certificate within the period
specified in sections mentioned above, shall be deemed to
be and shall continue to be a member or Sarpanch of
Village Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla
Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti,
as the case may be, and shall not be disqualified till the
period of twelve months from the date of commencement
of this Act for not submitting the Validity Certificate:
Provided that, if such person fails to produce the
Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months
from the date of commencement of this Act, his election
shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
and he shall be disqualified for being a member or
Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or President
of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of
Panchayat Samiti.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not be
applicable,—
(a) where bye-elections have been held on the seats
specified in sub-section (1) before the date of
commencement of this Act ; or
(b) where a member whose application of Validity
Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee.
4. All legal proceedings pending immediately before the
date of commencement of this Act, before any court or
authority relating to disqualification of a member or
Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or President
of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat
Samiti, for not submitting the Validity Certificate by them
in cases where extension of period for submission of
Validity Certificate is granted under this Act, shall abate.”
33
30. The statement of objects and reasons leading to the passing
of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 w.e.f. 10.07.2023 are
important. They are extracted hereinbelow:-
“Sections 10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act (III of 1959) and sections 12A, 42 and 67
of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayats
Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962) provides that, every
person desirous of contesting elections to a seat of a
member or Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Councillor
or President of the Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman
of Panchayat Samiti reserved for persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may
be, Backward Classes of Citizens, shall submit alongwith
the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued
by the Scrutiny Committee.
2. The abovementioned sections of the said Acts are
amended with a view to allow the persons, desirous of
contesting for such reserved seats in certain general or
bye-elections and have applied to the Scrutiny Committee
for obtaining Validity Certificate, to submit the Validity
Certificate within twelve months from the date on which
they were declared elected.
3. As the Scrutiny Committees are overburdened with
the work of verification of Caste Certificates, the
elected members were facing difficulties in obtaining
the Validity Certificates from the Scrutiny
Committees within the period specified in the said
Acts. The applications of such elected members are
still pending before the Scrutiny Committees.
However, due to pending applications of such members
before Scrutiny Committees more than seven thousand
duly elected members were disqualified or might be
disqualified for not submitting Validity Certificates for no
34
fault of their own. Also it had caused hindrance in the
local self-governing process. It was, therefore,
necessary to ensure that such elected candidates shall
not be deprived to hold such offices merely because of
non-issuance of validity certificates in time by the
Scrutiny Committees when their applications are still
pending with the Scrutiny Committees.
4. It was, therefore, considered expedient to make a law
to provide for extension of a period of twelve months for
submitting Validity Certificates by persons elected on
reserved seats of member, Sarpanch, Councillor,
President and member and Chairman in certain general or
bye-elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis and for the matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
5. As both Houses of the State Legislature were not in
session and the Governor of Maharashtra was satisfied
that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary
for him to take immediate action to make a law, for the
purposes aforesaid, the Maharashtra Temporary
Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate
(for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Ordinance, 2023 (Mah.
Ord. VI of 2023), was promulgated by the Governor of
Maharashtra on the 10th July 2023.
6. The Bill is intended to replace the said Ordinance by an
Act of the State Legislature.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. As would be evident, this Temporary Extension Act was
enacted since the Scrutiny Committees were overburdened
with the work of verification of Caste Certificates and the
elected members were facing difficulties in obtaining the
35
Validity Certificates within the prescribed time. It is aimed
to protect the applicants whose applications are still pending
before the Scrutiny Committee. The idea was that such
elected candidates ought not to be deprived merely because
of non-issuance of Validity Certificates when the
applications are still pending. Section 3 begins with a non
obstante clause. It applies to elections held on or after the
1
st January, 2021 and till 10.07.2023, the date of
commencement of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. It
clearly provides that it covers the cases of persons who have
applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his
Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination
papers and who are elected on the reserved seat; and whose
applications are pending before the Scrutiny Committee on
the date of commencement of the Act. It is mandated that
they can produce the certificate within twelve months from
the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023 i.e. till 09.07.2024. Sub-clause (b) states that a person
36
whose election has been terminated or deemed to have been
terminated or a person who is disqualified for being a
Member or Sarpanch for not submitting the Validity
Certificate within the period specified in the sections
mentioned above (10-1A and 30-1A), shall be deemed to be
and shall be continued to be a member or Sarpanch and
shall not be disqualified till the period of twelve months.
Sub-section (2) further clearly states that the provisions of
sub-section (1) shall not apply where the member whose
application of Validity Certificate had been rejected by the
Scrutiny Committee. Section 4 states that all legal
proceedings pending immediately before the date of
commencement of the Act, before any court or authority
relating to disqualification of a member, for not submitting
the Validity Certificate where extension of period for
submission is granted under the present Act was to abate.
32. The High Court, in the impugned order, has recorded the
following findings in its operative portion:
37
“32. In this particular case, Sudhir's application for a
Validity Certificate was rejected on 1st April 2021. The
argument that this rejection is technical is totally
irrelevant. In fact, the order seems to us to expose
precisely the mischief that is sought to be cured and
addressed by Section 10-1A and the amended proviso. It
is not permissible for a candidate to simply file an
application and do nothing further. That application for a
Validity Certificate must be properly filed and followed
through. The mere filing of the application is not in
sufficient compliance with the statute. The Validity
Certificate has to be obtained within the time provided,
whether by the original statute or by the Temporary
Extension Act. Simply filing some sort of defective
application with incomplete documents does not
meet the statutory purpose.
33. Thus, if even the mischief rule of interpretation, the
oldest interpretation doctrine by far, [Heydon’s case,
1584, 76 ER 637] is adopted for the purposes of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the
Temporary Extension Act, it is clear that
defective or incomplete applications that result in a
rejection are no different from a rejection on merits. Yet,
Section 3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension Act is
thus an essential safeguard.
34. Viewed from either perspective, the Temporary
Extension Act cannot come to Sudhir's rescue. We note
from the Ordinance, a copy of which is at pages 93 and
96, that it was necessitated because of the huge backlog
of applications pending before the scrutiny committee.”
33. As was set out earlier, after obtaining his caste certificate on
03.02.2013, it was only on 30.12.2020 that is on the same
day of the nomination that the Appellant No. 1 moved the
38
Scrutiny Committee for obtaining the Validity Certificate.
The elections were held on 18.01.2021 and the results were
declared on 21.01.2021. He ought to have furnished the
Validity Certificate by 20.01.2022.
34. After filing his application for the Validity Certificate on
30.12.2020, he undertook that he would file the declaration
of the results within a week. Besides, this undertaking is
legally backed by the judgment in Mandakani Kachru
Kokane (supra), which no doubt gave two weeks from the
date of declaration of the result for communication of the
declaration to the Scrutiny Committee. Admittedly, the
appellant No. 1 did not submit the declaration either within
one week as undertaken or within two weeks as provided in
Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra). In cases where there
is due communication from the applicants, the Division
Bench in Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra) had obligated
the Scrutiny Committee to decide the case within a
maximum period of eight months from the date of
39
communication. The Scrutiny Committee which is faced
with a large number of applications can legitimately expect
that the applicants who require disposal on priority basis
should comply with the formalities required to enable the
applicant to get priority in decision making. The Committee
under Rule 17(3) is also entitled to reject incomplete
applications by recording reasons. Under Section 17(2) it is
also the obligation of the applicant to comply with removal
of objections raised.
35. It is in this background that the order of 01-03/04/2021
came to be passed whereby the applications (including those
of the Appellant No.1), were ‘filed’. On the facts of the
case, the question is, would the order of 01-03.04.2021
tantamount to a rejection under Section 3(2)(b) of the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023 so as to dis-entitle
Appellant No.1 from the benefit of Section 3.
36. To answer this question, the object of Section 10-1A and 30-
1A of the Panchayats Act along with Sections 3 and 4 of the
40
Temporary Extension Act, 2023 ought to be borne in mind.
As has been correctly held in Anant H. Ulahalkar (supra)
while reiterating the holding in Sujit Vasant Patil (supra),
ordinarily, the rule is for an aspiring candidate in an election
to submit the Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate
along with the nomination. However, a window of twelve
months was given for those who have not obtained the
Validity Certificate to furnish the same and this was held to
be a “risk” that the applicants were taking. Under the Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, the certificate attains finality only if it
is authenticated with a Validity Certificate. That statute and
scheme have been discussed herein above. From those who
aspire to contest for a reserved seat and who take a risk of
applying for the validity certificate by filing an application
before the date of nomination, it is prudent to expect that
they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution of
their application. This would mean that they are expected to
do all that is within their control to do and submit with the
41
Scrutiny Committee a valid application for their
consideration. In fact, it was on the basis that applicants
aspiring to contest election who do not possess a Validity
Certificate, were taking a risk, that the provisions were held
to be mandatory. Further and independent of the above,
Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra) which came on
27.10.2020 well before the Appellant No.1 filed his
nomination clearly mandated that there was an obligation on
the applicants before the Scrutiny Committee to furnish the
declaration of the results within two weeks of the
declaration of the results for expeditious disposal. In this
case, results were announced on 21.01.2021. Under the law,
as it obtained in Maharashtra, as laid down in the statute and
in the judgments of the Court, there was an obligation to
furnish the validity certificate on or before 20.01.2022. The
Appellant No. 1 admitted in the second application filed on
14.06.2023 that inspite of possessing the declaration of the
result, for some reason, he could not file the same with the
42
Scrutiny Committee. The consequence was that on
20.01.2022, the Appellant No.1 stood automatically
disqualified as a Member with retrospective effect from the
date of his election, under Section 10-1A of the Panchayats
Act. On 01-03/4/2021, under Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the
Caste Certificate Rules, the applications were ‘filed’ for not
submitting of the notification of his election. It is pertinent
to note that the said order was never challenged by the
Appellant No.1 and so it has attained finality.
37. To hold that – in spite of the Appellant No.1 not doing
everything required to be done, and which were under his
control to do – his application before the Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee was still pending on 10.07.2023 for the
purposes of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023, would be letting the Appellant No.1 take advantage of
his own wrong. It will also go against the object and
purpose of extending the time for production of the Validity
43
Certificate by further period of twelve months from
10.07.2023.
38. As is clear from Section 3(1), the further period of twelve
months from 10.07.2023 was for those whose applications
were validly filed and pending and where their applications
have been submitted before the date of nomination. Subsection (1)(b) of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act,
2023 only revives the membership of those, whose
applications are pending by enacting a deeming provision,
since they are now given a further period of twelve months
from 10.07.2023 to furnish the Validity Certificate. Subsection (2) (b) clearly states that Section 3(1) was not to
apply to members whose applications for Validity Certificate
has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee.
39. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant No.1
that there was no rejection and that it was only a “filing” or
“lodgment” of the application on 01-03/04/2021 by the
Scrutiny Committee, does not commend itself to us for
44
acceptance. The rejection in Section 3(2)(b) will also
include those cases where applications came to be rejected
on account of defaults committed at the end of the
applicants themselves. An applicant who has certain things
under his control ought to have done everything that is
under his control for the purpose of Section 3 of the
Temporary Extension Act, 2023. This would also mean that
Section 3(1) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 would
not apply since there was no valid application filed before
the nomination to the Scrutiny Committee and which was
pending. That his application was not pending, was also the
undertaking of the Appellant No.1, as explained
hereinabove. Accepting the contention of the Appellant
No.1 would also amount to putting a premium on the
concession given to a party who was taking the ‘risk’ of
contesting the election by not having a Validity Certificate
on the date of the nomination.
45
40. For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellant No.1
stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed
to produce the Validity Certificate within 12 months from
the date of his election. The protective umbrella of Section 3
of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available
to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the
reason that there was no valid application pending on the
date of the commencement of the said Act.
41. Additionally, the application was rejected under Rule 17. No
doubt this cannot be a rejection which will result in the
cancellation of his caste certificate. This is also reinforced
by the fact that the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, by its letter dated 14.09.2023, stated that the
Appellant No.1’s application dated 30.12.2020 was
“disposed for non-compliance” and clarifies that his Caste
Certificate dated 03.02.2013 is not invalidated. The
Appellant No.1 may take the benefit of the validity
certificate issued to him on 12.07.2023, pursuant to his
46
second application of 14.06.2023, for sustaining his Caste
Certificate issued by the Competent Authority on
03.02.2013, for contesting in future elections and for
claiming other concessions as may be available in law.
42. Appellant No.1 has ceased to be a member because of the
automatic disqualification. In view of this, the proceedings
of the Tahsildar dated 19.06.2023 rejecting the No
Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement
of three-fourth of the members “entitled to sit and vote”, was
not fulfilled, cannot be sustained and has rightly been set
aside by the High Court.
43. The net result is that the High Court was right in setting aside
the rejection of the No Confidence Motion and in holding
that the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2-
Sarpanch, was duly carried. The High Court was also
justified in directing that the Appellant No.2 should stop
47
exercising the powers as a sarpanch and in further directing
that the election for the post of village Sarpanch be notified
afresh. The High Court was justified in quashing the
declaration dated 19.06.2023 declaring that the No
Confidence Motion had failed.
44. We affirm the judgement and order of the High Court dated
20.09.2023 in Writ Petition No. 7924 of 2023. In view of the
above discussion, the Appeal is dismissed. Interim orders
will stand vacated. No order as to costs.
…....…………………J.
(Vikram Nath)
…....…………………J.
(K.V. Viswanathan)
New Delhi;
February 07, 2024.
48
