2003 Supreme(Bom) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Thakker C.K., C.J. Dr. Chandrachud D.Y., J.
Mohan Parasnath Goswami .... Petitioner.
Versus
Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certificates others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 810 of 2003, decided on 18-2/10-3-2003.
Advocates appeared :
A.S. Oka with Rajesh Datar, for petitioner.
C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 4.
P.J. Pawar, for respondent No. 2.
R.S. Apte, for respondent No. 3.

Headnote:Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Section 10(1)(c) - Cancellation of caste claim - Material facts suppressed by petitioner - Contention that mere invalidation of claim of belonging to a particular class does not work as ground of disqualification - Interpreting Section 10(1)(c) of B.P.M.C. Act, it would be proper that apart from mere invalidation of caste certificate an additional factor of invalidation of certificate must be cancelled on ground of being a false claim - Accordingly petition dismissed taking candidate as disqualified to hold office. - Ex facie, in Clause (a) of sub-section (1-C) of Section 10, the disqualification is attracted consequent upon the Scrutiny Committee declaring the caste certificate to be invalid and cancelling the same "on the ground of the same having been based on a false claim or declaration made by such person claiming to be belonging to the reserved category." There is in this sense a degree of consistency in the statutory theme enacted in the provisions of Section 10(1-C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the provisions of Section 10(4) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. Disqualification under Section 10(1-C) results where the ground for the invalidation and cancellation of the caste certificate is that it is based on a false claim or declaration by such person claiming to belong to a reserved category. In Section 10(4) of Act XXIII of 2001, the disqualification is attracted where a person has contested an election for a local authority, co-operative society or statutory body on a reserved seat by procuring a false caste certificate and on such false caste certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. The power of cancellation is conferred upon the Scrutiny Committee by Section 7(1) of the said Act, under which the Committee is empowered to inquire into the correctness of the certificate and to cancel and confiscate it if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudultely. Therefore, on an interpretation of Sections 7(1) and 10(4) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 on the one hand, as well as of Section 10(1-C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as amended by Maharahstra Act 11 of 2002 on the other, it would be apparent that the legislature has required that apart from a mere invalidation of a caste certificate, an additional factor has to exist before a candidate can be regarded as being disqualified from holding electoral office. In Section 10(1-C) as amended by Act 11 of 2002, the additional factor is that the caste certificate should have been held to be invalid and must have been cancelled on the ground of the certificate having been based a false claim or declaration. In Section 10(4) of Act XXIII of 2001, the additional factor is the cancellation of a false certificate. This has to be read together with Section 7 under which the power of cancellation arises on the ground that the certificate was obtained fraudulently

       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 - Sections 10(1) and 4 - Cancellation of caste claim - Petitioner found guilty of concealing vital facts - Contended that mere cancellation of caste certificate cannot disqualify to hold a post - Held, on analysis of Section 10(1-C) of the Act it is evident that caste certificate should have been held to be invalid and must have been cancelled on grounds of false basis - A false declaration still exists - Hence candidate can be regarded as totally disqualified for the post. - Ex facie, in clause (a) of sub-section (1-C) of Section 10, the disqualification is attracted consequent upon the Scrutiny Committee declaring the caste certificate to be invalid and cancelling the same "on the ground of the same having been based on a false claim or declaration made by such person claiming to be belonging to the reserved category." There is in this sense a degree of consistency in the statutory theme enacted in the provisions of Section 10(1-C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the provisions of Section 10(4) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. Disqualification under Section 10(1-C) results where the ground for the invalidation and cancellation of the caste certificate is that it is based on a false claim or declaration by such person claiming to belong to a reserved category. In Section 10(4) of Act XXIII of 2001, the disqualification is attracted where a person has contested an election for a local authority, co-operative society or statutory body on a reserved seat by procuring a false caste certificate and on such false caste certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. The power of cancellation is conferred upon the Scrutiny Committee by Section 7(1) of the said Act, under which the Committee is empowered to inquire into the correctness of the certificate and to cancel and confiscate it if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. Therefore, on an interpretation of Sections 7(1) and 10(4) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 on the one hand, as well as of Section 10(1-C) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 as amended by Maharashtra Act 11 of 2002 on the other, it would be apparent that the legislature has required that apart from a mere invalidation of a caste certificate, an additional factor has to exist before a candidate can be regarded as being disqualified from holding electoral office. In Section 10(1-C) as amended by Act 11 of 2002, the additional factor is that the caste certificate should have been held to be invalid and must have been cancelled on the ground of the certificate having been based a false claim or declaration. In Section 10(4) of Act XXIII of 2001, the additional factor is the cancellation of a false certificate. This has to be read together with Section 7 under which the power of cancellation arises on the ground that the certificate was obtained fraudulently.

       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 - Sections 10(1) and 4 - Scope of Caste Scrutiny Committee - In reviewing matter of caste scrutiny - Any order of committee needs to be assessed in totality - So that interference could be found out to be correct or arbitrary - However, as regards reviewing Court it cannot be considered to be a fact finding authority - It also does not substitute its own opinion on that of committee. - An applicant for the issuance of a caste certificate must in his conduct and dealings in that regard display utmost good faith. Section 8 of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 casts the burden on the claimant applicant (i) seeking the issuance of a caste certificate; (ii) in the enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority, Scrutiny Committee or appellate authority; and (iii) in a trial of an offence under the Act of establishing that he belongs to the concerned Scheduled Caste or Tribe, De-notified or Nomadic Tribe or Other Backward Class. Undoubtedly, the Competent Authority which issues the caste certificate has to satisfy itself of the genuineness of the claim and follow the procedure prescribed. The Scrutiny Committee to whom a caste certificate is forwarded has to similarly conduct an enquiry in the manner prescribed, involving, as the Supreme Court laid down in Madhuri Patil s case, the vigilance cell and a due opportunity of being heard to the candidate. Yet there is an affirmative duty on the applicant for the issuance of a caste certificate to disclose all circumstances within his knowledge which have a bearing on the legitimacy of his claim. A candidate who sets up a claim cannot be heard to say that having asserted that claim, he will leave it to the authorities to ferret out information to the contrary. True enough, there are genuine cases where poverty, ignorance and illiteracy of the members of those communities for whom benefits are reserved and the social prejudice or discrimination practiced on a systemic scale may pose serious hurdles in producing material from the remote past. Bona fide cases must evince empathy so that genuine candidates are not excluded. Equally, the candidate must and is bound to make a full disclosure sure of all material facts within his knowledge by producing relevant documentary and other material which will enable a proper assessment of his claim to be possible. A suppression of fact or a failure to produce documentary material available with the candidate will sustain an interference that there was a deliberateness in his conduct to establish a false caste claim. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize that the question as to whether a caste certificate has been based on a false claim or declaration is a question which has to be decided on the basis of the documentary and other material and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Committee which decides the question cannot be subjected to the impossible ask of probing the inner recesses of the mind of the applicant. To expect the Committee to discharge an impossible function like that will defeat the purpose of the legislation. The element of deliberateness implicit in the lodgment of a false claim or declaration is hence to be deduced from the material before the Committee, the conduct of the claimant and the circumstances of the case. When the Court reviewing the decision of the Committee under Article 226 considers the case, the order of the Committee must be assessed in its entirety in deciding whether any interference is warranted. The reviewing Court is not an appellate forum. The Court is not a fact finding authority nor does it substitute its own opinion for that of the Committee.