IMPORTANT POINT
Constitution of India¯Articles 341 and 342¯President’s order ¯ An enquiry as to whether any other caste or sub-caste can be included in the caste or tribe specifically mentioned in the Presidential Order is wholly impermissible. (Para 9)

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Articles 341 and 342 ¯ Additional District Deputy Collector Mumbai Suburn District Mumbai issuing caste certificate to the appellant certifying that she belongs to Hindu Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class (Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department and as amended from time to time ¯ In year 2007 both the appellant and the respondent no. 6 contesting elections of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay from ward 62 reserved for woman candidate belonging to other backward classes and appellant won the election ¯ State Election Commission sending the caste certificate of the appellant to the Screening Committee for scrutiny ¯ After election respondent sending a complaint to the Caste Scrutiny Committee alleging that the appellant’s claim of belonging to caste “Hindu Shimpi” was not proper ¯ By order dated 20.04.2007, the Committee certifying that the Caste Certificate issued to the appellant was valid and accepted that she belongs to `Shimpi’ of Other Backward Class (OBC) ¯ Challenging the said order, Respondent No. 6 filing Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay ¯ The High Court setting aside the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Committee and remanding the matter back to it for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. By order dated 19.06.2009, the Committee declaring that the claim of the appellant was invalid as and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her ¯ The appellant filing Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition ¯ Hence this special appeal ¯ Held, the finding of the Committee and Division Bench of the High Court that the appellant does not belong to caste `Shimpi’ (OBC) and belongs to `Namdeo Shimpi’ caste which is not OBC in the State of Maharashtra was proper.
        (b) Constitution of India, Arts 341 and 342 ¯ President’s order ¯ An enquiry as to whether any other caste or sub-caste can be included in the caste or tribe specifically mentioned in the Presidential Order is wholly impermissible. (Para 9)
        (c) Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001, Section 8 ¯ Where a person claims that he belongs to a particular caste, the burden of proof under section 8 of the Act lies on the person who claims to belong to that caste, tribe or class. (Para 16).
       Facts of the Case
        On 18.01.1997, the Additional District Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai issued a Caste Certificate to the appellant certifying that she belongs to Hindu Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class (Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department and as amended from time to time. In the year 2007, the appellant and Respondent No. 6 contested the elections of Municipal of Greater Mumbai from Ward No. 62 reserved for women candidate belonging to the other backward classes and the appellant won the election. As per the policy of the State Election Commission, the Caste Certificate of the appellant was sent to the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the caste claimed and issue of validity certificate.
        After the elections, Respondent No. 6 forwarded a complaint to the Caste Scrutiny Committee alleging that the appellant’s claim of belonging to caste “Hindu Shimpi” was not valid The appellant also submitted the documents in support of her claim. By order dated 20.04.2007, the Committee certified that the Caste Certificate issued to the appellant was valid and accepted that she belongs to `Shimpi’ of Other Backward Class (OBC).
        Challenging the said order, Respondent No. 6 filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court set aside the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Committee and remanded the matter back to it for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. By order dated 19.06.2009, the Committee declared the claim of the appellant herein as invalid and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her.
        Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009, the appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee ¯ Hence this special appeal.
       Findings
        Held, the finding of the Committee and Division Bench of the High Court that the appellant does not belong to caste ‘Shimpi’ (OBC) and belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ caste which is not OBC in the State of Maharashtra was proper.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The principal question which arose for consideration in this appeal is whether “Namdeo Shimpi” caste is a sub-caste within the meaning of Entry 153 (Shimpi) in the Government Notification notifying list of Other Backward Classes (OBC) relating to the State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such?

3) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5772 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

4) Brief Facts:

(a) On 18.01.1997, the Additional District Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai issued a Caste Certificate to the appellant herein certifying that she belongs to Hindu Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class (Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department and as amended from time to time. In the year 2007, the appellant herein along with Mrs Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf- Respondent No. 6 contested the elections of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No. 62 reserved for women candidate belonging to the other backward classes and the appellant won the election. As per the policy of the State Election Commission, the Caste Certificate of the appellant herein was sent to the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the caste claimed and issue of validity certificate.

(b) After the elections, Respondent No. 6 forwarded a complaint to the Caste Scrutiny Committee (in short ‘the Committee’) alleging that the appellant’s claim of belonging to caste “Hindu Shimpi” was not proper. The appellant herein also submitted the documents in support of her claim. By order dated 20.04.2007, the Committee certified that the Caste Certificate issued to the appellant was valid and accepted that she belongs to ‘Shimpi’ of Other Backward Class (OBC).

(c) Challenging the said order, Respondent No. 6 filed Writ Petition No. 5112 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 15.09.2008, the High Court set aside the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Committee and remanded the matter back to it for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. By order dated 19.06.2009, the Committee declared the claim of the appellant herein as invalid and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her.

(d) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009, the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 5772 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 21.10.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

(e) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

5) Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. S. Sukumaran, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. A.V. Sawant, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent No.6.

6) Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the Government Resolution dated 03.06.1996 issued by Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, submitted that in view of illustration given in Clause 25, the Committee and the High Court ought to have accepted the claim of the appellant and declared that she belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’, which is one of the castes included in Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In the above-mentioned Government Resolution, Clauses 25 and 31 have been pressed into service. They are as follows:

“Clause 25

If in the list of O.B.C.’s if there is a clear reference of the main caste, the competent authorities should issue caste certificate to the sub-caste or the similar caste of the main caste i.e., in the list of list of O.B.Cs’ caste Kunbi is included. If in the documents of any person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1124

2011 (8) Supreme 691SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJBharati Balkrishna Dhongade — Appellant(s)versusState of Maharashtra & Ors — Respondent(s)Civil Appeal No. 10465 of 2011(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34229 of 2010Decided on : 5-12-2011

IMPORTANT POINT Constitution of India¯Articles 341 and 342¯President’s order ¯ An enquiry as to whether any other caste or sub-caste can be included in the caste or tribe specifically mentioned in the Presidential Order is wholly impermissible. (Para 9)

Cases Referred (7)

2011 (8) Supreme 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ
Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 10465 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34229 of 2010
Decided on : 5-12-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Constitution of India¯Articles 341 and 342¯President’s order ¯ An enquiry as to whether any other caste or sub-caste can be included in the caste or tribe specifically mentioned in the Presidential Order is wholly impermissible. (Para 9)