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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S.Patel, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Shilpa Santosh Salvi - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Shobhnath Yadav & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1532 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate, with Shubham Misar., for the petitioner; Mr pramod patil, with Ajit Hon, Kunjan Jogdond & Shyam S Solanake, i/b PNP & Associates., Mr Vishal Thadani, Addl GP. State, for the respondents.

IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue a Caste Certificate is determined by the applicant's place of ordinary residence as of the deemed date, and a Caste Certificate issued by the appropriate authority is valid even if the applicant's birthplace falls under a different jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Caste Certificate - Validity of Caste Certificate - Caste Certificate Act, 2000; Caste Certificate Rules, 2012; Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority in issuing a Caste Certificate, emphasizing that the authority must be based on the applicant's place of ordinary residence as of the deemed date. The court interpreted the Caste Certificate Rules, particularly Rule 5, which outlines the conditions under which a Caste Certificate can be issued, and concluded that the Mumbai Suburban authority had the jurisdiction to issue the certificate in question. The court also referenced previous judgments to support its interpretation of jurisdiction and the validity of the Caste Certificate issued.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner challenged the validity of a Caste Certificate issued to the 1st Respondent by the Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban, arguing that only the Competent Authority of Mumbai City had jurisdiction to issue it, as the 1st Respondent was born in Kamathipura, Mumbai. The Petitioner contended that the 1st Respondent's residence in Jogeshwari since 1968 did not confer jurisdiction to the Mumbai Suburban authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Caste Certificate was validly issued by the Mumbai Suburban authority. It determined that the 1st Respondent's ordinary residence was in Jogeshwari, and the bifurcation of Mumbai City and Suburban occurred after the deemed date. The court upheld the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which had validated the Caste Certificate after thorough investigation.

Issues: Whether the Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban, had the jurisdiction to issue the Caste Certificate to the 1st Respondent, given the historical context of the jurisdictional bifurcation and the residence of the 1st Respondent's family.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue a Caste Certificate is determined by the applicant's place of ordinary residence as of the deemed date. The court emphasized that the Mumbai Suburban authority had the jurisdiction to issue the certificate based on the 1st Respondent's residence and the applicable rules and previous judgments.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Petition, ruling that the Caste Certificate issued to the 1st Respondent was valid and that the Mumbai Suburban authority had the necessary jurisdiction to issue it.

JUDGMENT

Kamal Khata, J. -Rule. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity of the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority Mumbai Suburban to the 1st Respondent on the ground that the Competent Authority Mumbai City alone had the jurisdiction to issue it. The impugned Caste Certificate bearing No. 1285/2016 dated 7th November 2016 was issued to the 1st Respondent by the Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban.

3. Mr Anturkar for the Petitioner restricts his arguments to the issue that the Caste Certificate is invalid as the 1st Respondent was born at Kamathipura, Mumbai on 29th August 1967 and therefore the Competent Authority Mumbai City alone could have issued it and not the Competent Authority, Mumbai Suburban. He submits that 'merely' because the 1st Respondent was residing at Jogeshwari 'since 1968', the Competent Authority at Mumbai Suburban had no authority or jurisdiction to issue the Caste Certificate.

4. He relies on the Full Bench (FB) judgement of Rajendra Shivram Thakur v State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1194 : (2019) 4 Mah LJ 721 (FB) : (2019) 4 Bom CR 846 (FB) : (2019) 5 AIR Bom R 279 : AIR 2019 Bom 251 (FB) : (2019) 4 KLT (SN 30) 20. to contend that it would not be merely a lack of territorial jurisdiction but a lack of inherent jurisdiction for the Competent Authority Mumbai Suburban to grant a Caste Certificate to the 1st Respondent. The Full Bench judgement in Rajendra (supra) held that the view expressed in Niraj Kamlakar More v Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 739 : (2012) 5 Mh L J 367, does not state the law correctly as such a case would not be a matter of a lack of territorial jurisdiction, but a lack of inherent jurisdiction. Mr Anturkar submits that thus, the Caste Certificate would be a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction.

5. In support of his contention, he relies on Rule 5 (1) of The Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules 2012 ('Caste Certificate Rules'), which reads thus:

    '5. Procedure to be followed by Competent Authority for issuance of Caste Certificate or rejection of application for Caste Certificate -

(1) The Competent Authority may issue Caste Certificate to an applicant who himself or whose father or grand father or great grand father was ordinarily residing within the area of territorial jurisdiction of that Competent Authority on deemed date. (Emphasis added)

6. This rule provides for issuance of Caste Certificate to an applicant, who himself or whose father or grandfather or great grandfather was ordinarily residing within the area of territorial jurisdiction of that Competent Authority on the deemed date. The deemed date, Mr Anturkar submits, under Rule 2(e) of Caste Certificate Rules for OBCs is 13th October 1967. For convenience, Rule 2(e) is extracted hereunder:

    '2(e) 'deemed date' means the 10th August 1950, i.e., date of Presidential Order for Scheduled Castes; and the 21st November, 1961 for De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) and Nomadic Tribes; and the 13th October, 1967 for Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category;' (Emphasis added)

7. Mr Anturkar submits that the 1st Respondent (then a minor) and his family (including his father) admittedly resided at Kamathipura (South Bombay) in the jurisdiction of Competent Authority at Mumbai City on the deemed date, i.e., 13th October 1967. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 5 of Caste Certificate Rules, the Deputy Collector Mumbai City alone had the jurisdiction to issue a Caste Certificate.

8. Mr Anturkar contests the contention of the 1st Respondent in the affidavit in reply that shifting from Kamathipura (now Mu

        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