ARUNA vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).    4457­4458     OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10675­10676 of 2020) ARUNA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  AND OTHERS      ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4459   OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11416 of 2020) ARUNA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  AND OTHERS      ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant assails the dismissal of her writ petition and the review petition by the High Court.  The High Court declined Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.07.27 17:06:12 IST Reason: 1 to   interfere   with   the   order   of   the   District   Caste   Verification Committee  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Committee’)  dated 22.10.2018.    The   Committee   declined   to   verify   the   caste certificate of the appellant under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes,   De­notified Tribes  (Vimukta Jatis ), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste   Certificate   Rules,   2012  (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the Rules’).   The appellant, as a consequence, stood retrospectively disqualified   to   hold   the   post   of   President   of   the   Municipal Council,   Kundalwadi,   under   Section   9A   of   the   Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’).   3. Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the acceptance of her nomination by   the   Returning   Officer   for   the   post   of   President   was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No. 4 in Election Appeal No. 02 of 2016 on the ground that her caste certificate dated 2 22.11.2016   was   invalid.     The   appellant,   prior   to   filing   her nomination had obtained the requisite caste certificate in Form 10 under Rule 6(1)(a) from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellate Court upheld the validity of her caste   certificate,   and   left   the   verification   of   the   same   to   the Committee, where it was pending.   The Committee upheld the validity   of   the   caste   certificate,   but  erred   in  holding   that  the certificate having been issued to a migrant from another State it could not verify it under the proviso to Rule14.   The appellant having failed to submit the verification of the caste certificate within   the   stipulated   time,   was   declared   disqualified retrospectively under the Act.   4.  Shri   Marlapalle   submits   that   the   Verification   Committee erred in relying upon the proviso to Rule 14.  The caste certificate of   the   appellant   had   not   been   issued   by   an   authority   from another State.     The High Court failed to notice the certificate issued to the appellant was under Rule 6 (1) (a) in Form 10, the validity of which had been upheld both by the Appellate Court 3 and the Committee.   It erroneously opined that she could not have contested the elections on basis of a certificate issued at Hyderabad, without a fresh Caste Certificate from the State of Maharashtra   notwithstanding   that   “Munnur   Kapu”   had   been declared   an   “Other   Backward   Caste”   in   Maharashtra   also   on 07.12.1994. 5. Shri   Rahul   Chitnis   and   Shri   T.R.B.   Sivakumar,   learned counsel for the State and Respondent No.4, submitted that the Appellate Court had left the verification of her caste certificate to the Committee.  The Committee did not verify the same as having been   issued   by   the   authorities   at   Hyderabad.     The   appellant ought to have applied for a fresh certificate under the Rules.  The retrospective disqualification of the appellant therefore merits no interference as she failed to submit her verified caste certificate within the stipulated time.  6. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the parties. The controversy lies in a narrow compass.   Both, the 4 Committee and the High Court having posed unto themselves a wrong question, arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The High Court completely misdirected itself in holding that the appellant had been issued a caste certificate under Rule 6(1)(c) and was therefore ineligible to contest in the State of Maharashtra as she was a migrant after the deemed date.  7. The   father   of   the   appellant   was   born   in   Nanded, Maharashtra but migrated to Hyderabad in or about the year 1960.  The appellant was born in Hyderabad and   pursuant to her marriage on 24.05.1987, she migrated from the State of Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra.  She held a valid caste certificate issued to her at Hyderabad as belonging to the Other Backward Caste “Munnur Kapu”.  As on the date of her migration “Munnur Kapu” was not recognised as an Other Backward Caste in Maharashtra, till it was so recognized on 07.12.1994.  The appellant applied for and obtained a caste certificate in Form 10, under Rule 6(1)(a) from   the   Sub­Divisional   Officer,   Biloli,   Maharashtra,   as   she 5 desired to contest the election for the post of President Municipal Council. Rule 6 in the relevant extract reads as follows :­ “6.   Issuance   of   Caste   Certificate   to   migrated persons.   ­ (1)  in case of  persons  migrated  from other   State   or   Union   Territories   to   Maharashtra State,­ (a) The Competent Authority, if satisfied, may issue Caste   Certificate   to   the   applicants   belonging   to, Scheduled   Caste   in   FORM­6   and   in   case   of Scheduled   Caste   converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­ notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category   in   FORM­10,   to   an   applicant   who   has migrated   to   Maharashtra   State   from   any   other State   or   Union   Territory,   on   production   of   the respective   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled   Caste converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­notified   Tribes (Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribes   or   Other Backward Classes  or Special Backward Category Certificate issued to his father or grand­father or relative by the concerned Competent Authority of that State; (b) If the Competent Authority is of the opinion that before issuing such Caste Certificate in FORM­10 to   a   migrated   person,   a   detailed   inquiry   is necessary,   then   he   may   do   so   through   the applicant’s State of origin; (c) A Caste Certificate holder who has migrated to the   State   of   Maharashtra   from   the   State   of   his origin   for   the   purpose   of   seeking   education, employment, etc., may be deemed to be the person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Caste converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­notified   Tribe (Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribe   or   Other Backward Class or Special Backward Category, as 6 the case may be, of the State of his origin and may be entitled to derive benefits from the State of his origin   and   Union   Government,   but   he   shall   not derive any benefits from the State of Maharashtra. Explanation.   —  For  the   purpose   of  sub­rule  (1), “migrant from other State" means, ­ (i) a person who has migrated to Maharashtra State from any other State or Union Territory on or after the deemed date;”   Rule 2 (e) defines deemed date, relevant to the appellant, as 13.10.1967. 8. The   validity   and   genuineness   of   the   appellant’s   caste certificate dated 22.11.2016 under Rule 6(1)(a) was upheld by the appellate authority and the Committee.  The Committee patently erred in declining to verify her caste certificate on 22.10.2018, based on a complete misconception of facts.  The caste certificate of the appellant dated 22.11.2016 was issued under Rule 6(1)(a) by the competent authority of the State of Maharashtra and not by the competent authority at Hyderabad.   Rule 14 reads as follows: “14.  Verification of Caste Certificate ­Any person desirous of availing of the benefits and concessions 7 provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De­notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special   Backward   Categories   for   any   of   the purposes as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall invariably submit an application in  FORM­16  with an affidavit in  FORM­3  and  FORM­17  for students;   with an affidavit in     with an FORM­18 FORM­20 affidavit   in     and     for   election FORM­3 FORM­21 purpose; or  FORM­22  with an affidavit in  FORM­3 and   FORM­23   for   other   purpose,   as   per   his requirement, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim and issue of Caste Validity Certificate, well in time: Provided that, the Caste Certificate issued to migrant from other State and Caste or Community Certificates   issued   by   Authorities   of   the   States other than the State of Maharashtra, shall not be verified by such Caste Scrutiny Committee.” 9.   To our mind, the conclusion of the Committee reflects a confusion in thinking of the members of the Committee.   The Committee   could   not   verify   a   caste   certificate   issued   by   a competent authority of another State under the proviso to Rule 14.  But we fail to understand, how the Committee could decline to verify a certificate issued under Rule 6(1)(a) in the prescribed Form 10, the validity or genuineness of which was not in issue at all.  8 10. The   appellant   having   been   elected   on   28.12.2016   was required to submit her Caste Certificate after verification by the Verification Committee within one year under Section 9(A) of the Act as amended by the Maharashtra Act No. LXV of 2018 in Section 5B with effect from 07.04.2015.  In absence of the same she   stood   retrospectively   disqualified   to   her   elected   post   of President.   Reference   may   appropriately   be   made   to   Benedict   AIR Denis Kinny and Ors v. Tulip Brian Miranda and Ors, 2020 SC 3050, for the mandatory nature of the disqualification in such event. 11. The   High   Court   committed   serious   error   of   record   in examining the claim of the appellant under Rule 6(1)(c) which deals with migration for the purpose of education, employment etc. based on a caste certificate from the State of origin, being ineligible in the State of Maharashtra if the migration was after the deemed  date.    The  High Court grossly  erred  in  failing to appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from 9 the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it.     Furthermore,   the   appellant   was   not   seeking   the   reserved status for the purpose of education or employment. The High Court arrived at a completely wrong conclusion by reason of an erroneous appreciation of the facts.  The order of the High Court is therefore held to be unsustainable.  12. That brings us to the nature of relief to be granted to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The elected tenure of the appellant comes to an end in December, 2021.   In the meantime, respondent no.4 assumed the position of the President after the disqualification of the appellant.   We are, therefore, satisfied that present is not a fit case where we should   reinstate   the   appellant.   The   relief   therefore   has necessarily   to   be   moulded   to   be   prospective   in   nature,   with regard to her caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in the State of 10 Maharashtra as from 22.11.2016. The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. ………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   ………………………..J.    (R. Subhash Reddy)   New Delhi, July 27, 2021 11