SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 1741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.B. MHASE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve — Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 5691 OF 2007
WITHWRIT PETITION NOS. 3793/07, 4165/07 (with CA 2251/07),
4250/07 (with CA 2257/07), 4312/07 (with CA 2265/07),
4313/07 (with CA 2258/07), 4335/07 (with CA 2263/07),
4336/07 (with CA 2264/07), 4416/07, 4417/07, 4422/07,
4429/07, 5074/07, 5144/07, 5529/07, 5692/07, 5696/07,
5705/07, 5730/07, 5766/07, 5777/07, 5830/07, 5865/07,
5867/07, 5872/07, 5874/07, 5875/07, 5878/07, 5880/07,
5882/07, 5950/07, 6077/07, 6187/07, 6188/07, 6189/07,
6191/07, 6192/07, 6377/07, 6568/07, 6587/07, 6596/07,
6768/07.
Decided on : 20TH DECEMBER 2007

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S. Godbole for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5691/07, 4416/07, 4417/07, 4422/07, 4429/07, 5692/07, 5696/07, 5705/07, 5766/07, 5777/07, 5830/07, 6077/07 and 6768/08.
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3793/07, 5144/07, 5730/07, 6187/07, 6188/07, 6189/07, 6191/07 and 6192/07.
Mr.L.M. Acharya for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4165/07 with C.A. No.2251/07, Writ Petition No.4250/07 with C.A. No.2257/07, Writ Petition No.4312/07 with C.A. No.2265/07, Writ Petition NO.4313/07 with C.A. No.2258/07, Writ Petition No.4335/07 with C.A. No.2263/07 and Writ Petition No.4336/07 with C.A. No.2264/07.
Mr.Avinash Avhad for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5074/07.
Mr.P.D. Dalvi for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5529/07.
Mr.Vijay Patil for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5865/07.
Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rahul Walvekar for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5867/07, 5872/07, 5880/07 and 5950/07.
Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5874/07 and 5875/07. Mr.Pratap Patil for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5878/07.
Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.5882/07, 6587/07 and 6596/07.
Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B. Deshmukh for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6377/07.
Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6568/07.
Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the State.
Ms.Anjali Iyer for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.4165/07.
Mr.G.S. Godbole for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.4250/07 with C.A. No.2257/07.
Mr.A.J. Bhor for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.4313/07 with C.A. No.2258/07.
Mr.Kirit Hakani for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition Nos.4335/07 and 4336/07.
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for respondent no.9 in Writ Petition No.4416/07 and for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.6377/07.
Mr.S.B. Shetye for respondent no.10 in Writ Petition No.4416/07, for respondent no.12 in Writ Petition No.4417/07, for respondent no.9 in Writ Petition Nos.4422/07, 5730/07 & 5777/07, for respondent no.11 in Writ Petition Nos.4429/07 & 5766/07, for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition Nos.5144/07, 6187/07, 6188/07, 6189/07 & 6191/07, for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No.5529/07, for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition Nos.5692/07, 5696/07 & 6077/07, and for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition Nos.5882/07 & 6587/07. Mr.R.G. Ketkar for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition Nos.4417/07 and 4422/07. Mr.M.V. Bhutekar for respondent nos.9 to 11 in writ Petition No.4417/07 and for respondents no.9 & 10 in Writ Petition No.4429/07.
Mr.P.D. Dalvi for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition No.5144/07.
Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.5529/07. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.5529/07.
Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent no.10 in Writ Petition
No.5830/07.
Mr.J. Shekhar for respondent no.3 in Writ Petition
Nos.5865/07 and 5878/07.
Mr.M.S. Lagu for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition
No.5872/07.
Mr.V.D. Borwankar for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6188/07.
Mr.U.B. Nighot for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6189/07.
Mr.O.A. Siddiqui for respondent no.6 in Writ Petition
No.6192/07.
Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition
No.6587/07.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of four months for production of caste validity certificate is merely a procedural requirement and cannot supplant the constitutional mandate of reservation.

Headnote:

Caste Validity Certificate - Constitutional Validity of Sections - MMC Act, BPMC Act, Municipalities Act, Zilla Parishads Act, Village Panchayats Act - Section 5-B of MMC Act, Section 5-B of BPMC Act, Section 9-A of Municipalities Act, Section 12-A of Zilla Parishads Act, Section 10-A of Village Panchayats Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of sections in various acts related to the requirement of producing a caste validity certificate for contesting elections to reserved seats for backward classes. They argued that the time limit of four months for producing the certificate should be held as directory.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the period of four months for production of caste validity certificate is merely a procedural requirement and cannot supplant the constitutional mandate of reservation. The court held that the period of four months is directory, ensuring that genuine candidates belonging to backward classes are not unjustly disqualified due to delays in obtaining the caste validity certificate.

Issues: The main issue was whether the period of four months prescribed for production of caste validity certificate should be construed as directory or mandatory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period of four months for production of caste validity certificate is merely a procedural requirement and cannot supplant the constitutional mandate of reservation. The court emphasized that the provision is not meant to punish genuine persons belonging to backward classes, but to punish impostors or fraudsters who falsely claim the social status of belonging to backward classes.

Final Decision: The court held that the period of four months prescribed for production of caste validity certificate is merely directory, ensuring that genuine candidates belonging to backward classes are not unjustly disqualified due to delays in obtaining the caste validity certificate.

ORDER

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 5-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "MMC Act"), section 5-B of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short "BPMC Act"), section 9-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "Municipalities Act"), section 12-A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis act, 1961 (for short "Zilla Parishads act") and section 10-A in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1950 (for short "the Village Panchayats Act"). In the alternative, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the time limit of four months prescribed for production of a caste/tribe validity certificate by the second proviso to each of the aforesaid sections should be held to be directory.

2. Since all the petitions raise common questions of law and challenge the constitutional validity on the same grounds and also put forward the same interpretation to the second proviso which are identical in each of the abovementioned sections of the Acts, we are passing this common order.

3. Article 243-D of the Constitution of India provides that seats shall be reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in every panchayat. The number of seats so reserved are required to bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that panchayat as the proportion of scheduled castes in that panchayat area or of the scheduled tribes in that panchayat area bears to the total population of that area. Article 243-T of the Constitution of India provides that seats shall be reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in every municipality (which under Article 243-Q shall include a Nagar Panchayat, a Municipal Council and a Municipal Corporation). The number of seats so reserved are required to bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that municipality as the population of the scheduled castes in that municipal area or of the scheduled tribes in that municipal area bears to the total population of that area. In order to fulfil the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 243-D and 243-T of the Constitution of India, the Legislature of State of Maharashtra has made provisions for reservation of seats for persons belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes of citizens in municipalities, village panchayats and zilla parishads.

4. In order to ensure that the benefits of reservation of seats in the municipalities, village panchayats and zilla parishads conferred on the persons belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the backward classes") are not taken away and/or grabbed by ineligible persons not belonging to the backward classes but who falsely claim to so belong, the Legislature introduced section 5-B in the MMC Act, section 5-B in the BPMC Act, section 9-AA in the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 and section 9-A in the Municipalities Act by enacting Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councillors (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Maharashtra Act No.XXXV of 2006). Similarly, the Legislature also introduced section 10(IA) in the Village Panchayats Act and section 12-A in the Zilla Parishads Act by enacting Bombay Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 2006). Section 5-B of the MMC Act, section 5-B of the BPMC Act and section 9-A of the Municipalities Act are identically worded and initially did not contain any proviso thereto. Section 10-IA of the Village Panchayats Act and section 12-A of the Zilla Parishads Act are also identically worded with section 5-B of the MMC Act and section 5-B of the BPMC Act save and except tha




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top