P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Jagdish Revansiddha Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (21 Oct 2016)

Wide powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked as a matter of right

MANU/MH/2163/2016

Civil

By present petition, Petitioner challenged judgment passed by caste scrutiny committee, the order passed by Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation and circular/order dated 17th July 2013 issued by State Election Commissioner, Maharashtra State. Caste scrutiny committee invalidated Petitioner's caste claim that, he belongs to "Teli" caste, which is notified as Other Backward Class ["OBC"]. On basis of above order of caste scrutiny committee, Commissioner declared that, Petitioner is disqualified and that his seat is deemed to have fallen vacant. By circular dated 17th July 2013, State Election Commission has authorised Commissioners of Municipal Corporations to pass formal order of declaring any councillor as disqualified on account of his caste claim being invalidated by caste scrutiny committee irrespective of the pendency of any election petition.

Supreme Court in case of Kalpana Dilip Bahirat v. Pune Municipal Corporation considered provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and held that, Election of a person who has contested on a seat reserved for the any caste / tribe / category on false caste certificate as belonging to such caste, tribe or class shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively. Deeming provision in sub-section (4) of section 10 of the 2000 Act is a statutory fiction which has to be given effect to and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has given effect to the deeming provision and has thus acted in accordance with law.

Caste scrutiny committee in impugned order has recorded finding that, documents on basis of which Petitioner has obtained caste certificate or documents which were relied upon by Petitioner to substantiate his caste that he belongs to Teli (OBC) caste are bogus and fabricated. After scrutiny of documents afresh, High Court upheld the finding of caste scrutiny committee.

Benefits obtained after coming into force of Act of 2000 on 18th October, 2001, can be withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of the caste claim by the scrutiny committee. In present case, Petitioner obtained caste certificate that he belongs to "Teli" caste in year 2010. This caste certificate is invalidated by impugned order passed on 29th November, 2014. Thus, caste certificate was obtained and same was invalidated subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 2000.

Wide powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked as a matter of right. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case is such that he cannot be permitted to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, caste certificate was obtained by Petitioner on bogus and fabricated documents, prayer for continuation of stay dismissed.

Relevant : Kalpana Dilip Bahirat vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. MANU/SC/0653/2013

Tags : ELECTION   INVALIDATION   CASTE CLAIM  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved