Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 1338

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Shankar S/O Raghunath Devre (Patil) – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(S). 29874-29875 of 2016 (Arising Out In WP No. 5686 of 2016 and In RP No. 201 of 2016)
Decided On : 23-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
SLP© 29874-75/16, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR, 6027/17, 29453/17 Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Adv, Mr. Shakul R. Ghatole, Adv, SLP© 29967/16, 31479/16, Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Adv, 6037/17,6034/17,6036/17, Mr. Vasim Siddiqui, Adv, 6035/17,6222/17,6984/17, Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR, SLP© 1326-27/17,13632/17, 25849/17, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Monica Hasija, Adv, Mr. Anurag Gharote, Adv, SLP©6040/17, Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR, Mr. Rhythm B., Adv, SLP©6041/17, Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv, Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR, SLP©6436/17, 6452/17, Mr. Anand Landge, Adv, Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR, SLP©15490/17, Mr. M. Y. Deshmukh, AOR, Mr. Shakti Pandey, Adv, SLP©8896-97/17,10146/17, 9754/18, Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR, SLP©9479/17,9484/17, 9486/17, for M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR, SLP©13091/17, Mr. Kailas B. Autade, Adv, Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR, SLP©36551/17 Mr. Anand Landge, Adv, Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR, SLP©10472/18 & rr in SLP© 29874-75/16, Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR, Ms. Heena Khan, Adv, SLP©12668/18, Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR, Mr. Rajendra, Adv, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Adv, Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv, Mr. V.S. Rawat, Adv, Mr. Sushil Pandey, Adv, Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Adv, SLP©19084/18 Mr. Kishor Lambat, Adv, Mr. R.R. Deshpande, Adv, Mr. Sachin Pahwa, Adv, for M/S. Lambat And Associates, AOR, Mr. Yogesh K. Ahirrao, Adv, Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR, Election Comm. Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Adv, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv, Ms. Aparna Jha, AOR, Ms. Laxmi Shashtri, Adv, Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR, Bhor Municipal Council Mr. Samrat Shinde, Adv, Mr. Rishi Jain, AOR, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Adv, Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR, Mr. Pravin Satale, Adv, Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR, Mr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR, Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv, Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv, Mr. Nivesh Kumar, Adv, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv, Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, Adv, Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv, Mr. Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava, Adv, Mrs. K.N. Sinha, Adv, Dr. S.K. Verma, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The time limit prescribed u/s 9A for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory.
Equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory.

Headnote:Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 - Section 9A, Proviso r/w section 5B, Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - High Court rightly held that the time limit prescribed u/s 9A for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory - High court also rightly held that equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory. (Para 11, 12)
       Facts of the case:
       The High Court held that provisions of Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 were mandatory.
       Finding of the Court:
       High court rightly held that the time limit prescribed u/s 9A for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory. High court also rightly held that equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory.
       Result: All SLPs and pending applications dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Permission to file special leave petition(s) is granted.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.

3. Delay condoned.

4. The following questions were referred for the opinion of a full Bench of the High Court of Bombay :

(i) Whether the time limit prescribed u/s 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory in nature ?
(ii) Whether the failure on the part of person elected as Councilor to produce the caste validity certificate within the period of six months from the date on which he was declared elected, irrespective of facts and circumstances and eventuality beyond the control of such person to produce validity certificate would automatically result into termination of his election with retrospective effect?
(iii) Whether the validation of caste claim of elected Councilor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would automatically result into termination of such Councilor with retrospective operation ?

5. The same were answered against the petitioner(s) by holding the provisions of Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 to be mandatory.

6. Aggrieved, the present special leave petitions have been filed for leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the full Bench. Several other connected matters which challenge a similar view taken by numerically similar Benches of the High Court have also been tagged and have been heard together.

7. In view of the elaborate arguments that have been advanced, we have thought it proper to briefly indicate the reasons for our conclusion.

8. Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (Act No.59 of 1949) require a member of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes to enclose with the nomination for election his/her Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and also the Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

9. A proviso to the aforesaid main provision of the statute was brought in subsequently which permitted a candidate to file his/her nomination even in the absence of the validity certificate provided he/she encloses with the nomination a true copy of the application filed by him/her before the Scrutiny Committee and an undertaking that he/she shall submit, within a period of six months from the date of his/her election, the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee.

10. There is a second proviso which contemplates that on the failure of the concerned person(s) to produce the validity certificate within the time frame stipulated his election “shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor”.

11. We have read and considered the very elaborate reasoning adopted by the Full Bench of the High Court in coming to its conclusions that the aforesaid provisions of the statute engrafts a mandatory requirement in law. The High Court, in our considered view, very rightly came to the aforesaid conclusion along with the further finding that equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory. In fact, the High Court has supported its decision by weighty reasons to hold that reading the provisions to be directory would virtually amount to rendering the same to be negatory.

12. Compounded is the fact that the proviso was deleted in the year 2008 and reintroduced in the year 2012. The same would go to show that sans the proviso the main provision would debar a candidate who does not possess a validity certificate from contesting the election as a reserved category candidate. If that is so the proviso has to be strictly construed and the deeming provision contained in the second provis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1338

IMPORTANT POINTSThe time limit prescribed u/s 9A for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory. Equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The time limit prescribed u/s 9A for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor is mandatory.
Equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory.