IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VASANTI A. NAIK, RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar - Petitioner
Vs.
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Solapur & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9528 of 2017 And Civil Application No. 2327 of 2017
Decided on : 03-10-2017
Caste Claim - Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Section 5B - The court discussed the caste claim of the petitioner, who had been elected as a Corporator in the Solapur Municipal Corporation based on her husband's caste, and subsequently submitted her caste claim from her father's side. The court referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the entitlement to contest elections based on caste claims and held that the petitioner's reliance on her husband's caste for election was not valid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected as a Corporator in the Solapur Municipal Corporation based on her husband's caste, subsequently submitted her caste claim from her father's side. The petitioner sought direction against the respondent to restrain disqualification until the caste claim decision was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's reliance on her husband's caste for election was not valid, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's caste claim and entitlement to contest elections based on her husband's caste.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a married woman cannot rely on her husband's caste to contest elections for a seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition with no order as to costs and rejected the application for stay.
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The Petitioner has in the present Petition sought direction against the Respondent No. 2 that till the decision of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1-Committee and till the serving of the copy of the decision to the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 be restrained from disqualifying the Petitioner in view of the Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
3. The brief background of the facts are necessary. The Petitioner has been elected as a candidate in the election of the Solapur Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner had contested the election as candidate of Congress (I) party for the seat available for OBC category. The Petitioner at the time of filling election form, submitted the documents in support of her caste case claiming as “Tambat” OBC on the basis of her husband's caste and not her father's caste. The Petitioner's election form was accordingly accepted. The Petitioner upon submitting her caste claim as Tambat OBC had been elected as Corporator of Solapur Municipal Corporation in the election conducted in February 2017. The Respondent No. 1-Committee had thereafter directed the Petitioner to submit the caste of her father's side and accordingly, the Petitioner had submitted the documents of her father's side which supported the caste claim of “Lohar NT”. It appears that the State Election Commission on 10 March 2017 informed the Secretary of Town Planning Department, Mantralaya that the orders regarding cancellation of election of a candidate should be passed with retrospective effect. The Caste Scrutiny Committee at Solapur had sent the file of the Petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Beed. The Special Divisional Officer, Parali, District Beed sent letter dated 22 June 2017 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Beed informing them that the Petitioner had been issued the caste certificate of Lohar caste from the office of Collector, Beed. The caste validity procedure was started at Beed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Beed in July 2017. The Petitioner had requested the Director of BARTI (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Research & Training Institute, Pune) to decide the caste claim at the earliest. It was also informed that in the event the caste claim is not decided before the cut off date, the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Solapur will be responsible for the same. The Caste Scrutiny Committee at Solapur had on 28 July 2017 informed the Petitioner that since the President and Secretary of the Committee was not available, the decision could not be taken on the caste validity. The Petitioner again by correspondence dated 2 August 2017 requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Solapur for giving the caste validity. In view of the delay in decision of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1-Committee, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner had submitted all requisite documents in support of her caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Solapur. The Petitioner had provided the Caste Certificate from her father's side. The Petitioner should have been given the caste validity of Lohar caste based upon the Caste Certificate issued by the Authority within the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Beed. The documents from the father's side of the Petitioner shows the caste of the Petitioner as Lohar-NT-B. The Caste Validity Certificate has been given to the son and daughter of the real brother of the Petitioner apart from being given to the father of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that there is no fault of the Petitioner in not producing the Caste Validity Certificate within the cut off i.e. six months from the date of election, as the Respondent No. 1-Committee kept pending the Caste Scrutiny case of the Petitioner from 27 January 2017 i.e. ove
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.