Full Judgment Text
2016:BHC-AS:26771-DB
wp-10913/14.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10913 OF 2014
Jagdish Revansiddha Patil. ]
Age : Adult, Occu : ]
R/a : 69, Bhavani Peth, ]
Tulzapur Ves Chowk, ]
Solapur, District Solapur. ]..Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra through its
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
]
]
]
]
2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee No.1, Soapuar, having its
office at Dr. Babasaheb Amedkar
Bhavan, Opposite Afzalpurkar
Mangal Karyalaya, Satrasta, Solapur
]
]
]
]
]
]
3] Commissioner for Solapur Municipal
Corporation having office at Solapur.
]
]
]
4] Election Commission of State of
Maharashtra.
]
]
]
5] Shri. Anil Sambhaji Gavai, at – 1176,
North kasba Tilak Chowk, Solapur.
]
] ..Respondents.
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for
the Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. M. Kulkarni i/b
M. R. Deshpande for Respondent No. 5.
patilsr 1 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Mr. R. S. Alange and Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for Respondent No.
3.
Mr. P. G. Kathane, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. B. Shetye, Mrs. D. S. Mondkar, Ms. Shreya Jadhav for
Respondent No. 4.
Coram : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
Arguments were heard on : October 14, 2016.
Judgment pronounced on : October 21, 2016.
Oral Judgment (Per Ranjit More, J.) :
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment
th
and order dated 29 November 2014 passed by the caste scrutiny
nd
committee, Solapur, the order dated 2 December 2014 passed
by the Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation and the
th
circular / order dated 17 July 2013 issued by the State Election
Commissioner, Maharashtra State.
th
2. By the order dated 29 November 2014, the caste
scrutiny committee invalidated the Petitioner's caste claim that
he belongs to “Teli” caste, which is notified as Other Backward
Class [for short “OBC”]. On the basis of above order of the caste
scrutiny committee, the Commissioner of Solapur Municipal
patilsr 2 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
nd
Corporation passed the order dated 2 December 2014 thereby
declaring that the Petitioner is disqualified and that his seat is
th
deemed to have fallen vacant. By the circular dated 17 July
2013, the State Election Commission has authorised the
Commissioners of Municipal Corporations to pass formal order of
declaring any councillor as disqualified on account of his caste
claim being invalidated by the caste scrutiny committee
irrespective of the pendency of any election petition.
3. In order to support his caste claim that he belongs
to “Teli” caste, the Petitioner has mainly relied upon the following
documents :
nd
[1] Birth Extract dated 22 April 1934 of Revansiddha
Muttyappa Patil, father of the Petitioner.
th
[2] Birth extract dated 25 March 1936 of Apparao
Muttyappa Patil, real uncle of the Petitioner.
st
[3] Loan receipt dated 21 October 1954 on Six Anna
Stamp given by Revansiddha, fatehr of the Petitioner
to Fulchand Kashinath Heblekar.
th
[4] Loan receipt dated 28 June 1955 on 1½ stamp given
by Revansidha Mutyappa Patil to Basappa
Satlingappa Aadake.
patilsr 3 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
th
[5] Khoti Receipt dated 13 January 1931 beween
Mutyappa Apparao Patil and Bhimu Basappa Patil.
4. The caste scrutiny committee called for the report
from vigilance cell. The officers of the vigilance cell accordingly
examined the original documents from Tahisldar's office as well
as from the custody of Petitioner and submitted report to the
caste scrutiny committee. So far as the first two documents are
concerned, the vigilance cell formed an opinion that entries
therein appear to be suspicious. Regarding rest of the three
documents, the vigilance cell has not given any adverse remark.
So far as first two documents are concerned, the scrutiny
committee relied upon report of the vigilance cell. In addition to
this, the caste scrutiny committee examined original documents
relied upon by Respondent No.5 and concluded that first two
documents relied upon by the Petitioner to support his caste
claim are bogus and fabricated. As far as document No.3 and 4
st th
namely, loan receipts dated 21 October 1954 and 28 June 1955,
are concerned, the caste scrutiny committee held that on these
documents there is no signature of Petitioner's father. It was
further found that though stamps on which these receipts were
patilsr 4 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
transcribed were purchased by Fulchand Heblekar and Basappa
Aadake and executed by them, there is vast difference in their
signatures made at the time of purchase of stamp and signatures
made at the time of execution of the document. The Caste
scrutiny committee therefore concluded that these two receipts
are bogus and fabricated. Regarding the last document, namely,
Khoti receipt, the caste scrutiny committee found that the same is
on simple paper and not registered therefore refused to take the
same into consideration.
5. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the caste scrutiny committee ought to
have called for the original record from the tahsildar's office
before arriving at the conclusion in respect of the first two
documents. He further submitted that without verifying the
same, the conclusion in respect of these documents could not
have been arrived at by the committee. He also submitted that
the finding of the caste scrutiny committee about the
interpolation of words or entires in the record is not sustainable
without calling for the expert opinion or without doing exercise of
patilsr 5 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
comparison between the disputed hand-writing and admitted
hand-writing. Regarding the loan receipts, Mr. Jahagridar relied
upon the report of the vigilance cell. In this regard, he submitted
that loan receipts were executed in the year 1954-55 and
therefore have more probative value and the caste scrutiny
committee could not have discarded these receipts. With respect
to the last document, Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that merely
because document is not registered, the committee could not
have refused to take the same into consideration for ascertaining
the caste claim of the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent no.5, on the contrary, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by Mr. Jahagirdar and supported the
findings recorded by the caste scrutiny committee. Mr.
Kumbhakoni submitted that on the face of it, the above
documents are bogus and fabricated. He also relied upon other
documents relied upon by Respondent No.5 before the caste
scrutiny committee to contest the Petitioner's caste claim as
belonging to Teli caste.
patilsr 6 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
7. The above documents are in modi script.
Translation thereof in Marathi has been placed on record.
Original of the first two documents is in the custody of Tahsildar,
Akkalkot. We have called the original registers and examined the
same. Photocopies of rest of the three documents are annexed
to the petition. We have examined originals documents, which
were tendered by Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner for our examination. We have returned the
originals after verifying the same.
8. The first and second documents are birth extract
nd th
dated 22 April 1934 and 25 March 1936 respectively of
Revansidha and Apparao, father and uncle of the Petitioner. Both
these documents indicate “Teli” to be the caste of Petitioner's
father and uncle. The said birth extract relate to the village
Badhole, Taluka Akkalkot. As stated above, vigilance cell after
examining the record opined that these entries appear to be
suspicious and this opinion is accepted by the committee.
patilsr 7 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
9. So far as the Birth and Death Register of village
Badhole for the year 1934 is concerned, there are total 56 entries
of birth and 12 entries of death. There is difference in the font of
letter, ink and style of writing between Entry Nos. 1 to 23 and
Entry No.24 to 56. We have also perused the Birth and Death
Register of village Badhole for the year 1936. There are total 76
entries of birth and 23 entries of death. There is vast difference
in the font of letter, ink and style of writing so far as Entry Nos.1
to 38 and Entry Nos. 39 to 72 are concerned. On perusal of Birth
and Death Registers of village Badhole for the years 1934 and
1936, we found that names of the fathers in the Birth and Death
Register for the year 1934 for birth at entry numbers 24 to 56 and
names of fathers in the Birth and Death Register for the year
1936 for birth at entry numbers 39 to 72 are the same. Thus, it
shows that the persons who gave birth to the children in the year
1934, the very same persons have again given birth to the
children in the year 1936 in the same chronology. The report of
vigilance cell also discloses that the enquiry was made in village
Badhole in which it was revealed that most of the persons shown
in the above entries were not resident of village Badhole.
patilsr 8 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
th
10. Be that as it may, birth extract dated 8 December
1937 of Apparao Mutyappa Patil, i.e., the Petitioner's uncle is
issued by Tahsildar, Akkalkot. It relates to village Nanhegaon,
Taluka Akkalkot. In this birth extract, the caste of the Petitioner's
uncle shown is “Veershaiv Lingayat”. Thus, there are two birth
extracts of the Petitioner's uncle, one at village Badhole and
another one at village Nanhegaon. In former, the caste of the
Petitioner's uncle is shown as “Teli”. But in the latter, it is shown
as Veershaiv Lingayat. In addition to this, vigilance cell also
examined the Birth and Death Registers concerning village
Nanhegaon for the years 1944-45 and 1967. At serial number 2,
in the Birth and Death Register of village Nanhegaon for the year
1944-45, there is entry of birth of Petitioner's aunt–Limbabai.
th
The entry shows that the Petitioner's said aunt was born on 11
June 1944. At serial No.12 in the Birth and Death Register
pertaining to village Nanhegaon for the year 1967, death entry of
the Petitioner's grand-father - Muthyappa is shown. It shows that
st
the Petitioner's grand-father expired on 31 June 1967. Thus, the
entries with regard to the birth and death of Petitioner's uncle,
patilsr 9 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
aunt and grand-father are at village Nanhegaon. The report of
the vigilance cell further shows that agricultural properties as
well as residential houses of the Petitioner and his forefather are
at village Nanhegaon. This fact shows that the Petitioner and his
forefather are resident of village Nanhegaon, taluka Akkalkot and
there was no reason to record the entries of birth of the
Petitioner's father and uncle in the birth and death registers at
village Badhole. We therefore agree with the finding of the caste
scrutiny committee in respect of these entries.
rd
11. The 3 document is the loan receipt executed on 6
anna stamp paper. The said stamp paper was purchased by
th
Fulchand Kashinath Heblekar on 20 October 1954 under his own
st
signature. This receipt was executed on 21 October 1954 and at
the bottom, it is signed by said Fulchand. Though this receipt is
shown to have been executed in favour the Petitioner's father,
there is no signature of Petitioner's father on this receipt. The
signature of Fulchand on the date of purchase and on the date of
execution of this paper, i.e., signatures at the top and bottom of
the document are substantially different. This can be easily
patilsr / 10 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
discerned, without any external assistance. We therefore agree
with the conclusion of the caste scrutiny committee that this
document is also bogus and fabricated one.
12. 1½ Anna stamp paper for execution of loan receipt
th
dated 28 June 1955 has been purchased by Basappa
Satilingappa Aadake under his own signature. The said loan
receipt is stated to have been executed by said Basappa S.
Aadake in favour of the Petitioner's father. On this document
too, there is no signature of the Petitioner's father. Executant
Basappa had signed this document at the time of purchase by
putting his signature at the top and he had also signed the said
document as executant, at the bottom of the document. On
examination, we find that these signatures of Basappa, at the top
and bottom of the said document, are substantially different
from each other. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this
document is also bogus and fabricated one and we agree with the
conclusion of the caste scrutiny committee about this document.
13. The last document is Khoti receipt. The same is on
patilsr / 11 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
plain paper. It is not registered one and therefore we do not find
any ground to interfere with the conclusion of the caste scrutiny
committee about this document.
14. We do not find merit in the submission of Mr.
Jahagirdar that caste scrutiny committee ought to have called for
the original record from the Tahsildar's office and verified the
same and sent it for verification to the hand-writing expert,
inasmuch as we have personally perused the record and arrived
at conclusion that the disputed entries are bogus. The record
reveals that the Petitioner and his forefather are residents of
village Nanhegaon, which fact is fortified by the documentary
evidence and therefore there was no reason to make entries of
birth of the Petitioner's father and uncle in the Birth and Death
Register of village Badhole.
15. The caste scrutiny committee in addition to above,
also considered several documents relied upon by Respondent
No. 5. A brief reference to those documents at this stage would
be necessary. In two school leaving certificates produced by
patilsr / 12 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Respondent No. 5, the caste of the Petitioner is shown as Hindu.
The caste of the Petitioner's brothers namely, Sunilkumar and
Rajshekhar in their school leaving certificates is shown as Virshaiv
Lingayat. The caste of the anut of the Petitioner, namely, Mangla
Patil and Limbabai Patil is shown as Hindu Lingayat in their
respective school leaving certificates. The caste of both the sons
of the Petitioner, namely, Amit and Sumit in their school leaving
certificate is also shown as Hindu Lingayat. The caste of cousin
brother of the Petitioner, namely, Dajiba is shown as Hindu
Lingayat. The caste of the Petitioner's father in his death
certificate is shown as Virshiav Lingayat. Thus, except two
documents which are relied upon by the Petitioner, in all other
documents the caste of the Petitioner and his near relatives is
shown either to be Hindu or Lingayat. The committee, in our
opinion, considered the claim of the Petitioner from correct
perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Having
rescrutinised the said documents, we find that first two
documents relied upon by the Petitioner are bogus and
fabricated.
patilsr / 13 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
16. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner also submitted that the Commissioner of Solapur
Municipal Corporation has no role or authority to pass order
regarding disqualification of the councillor and therefore, order
nd
passed by him on 2 December 2014 is without jurisdiction. In
this regard, Mr. Jahagirdar relied upon various decisions, namely,
Noor Jahan M. Aslam Ansari v. State of Maharashtra [2004 (2)
BomC.R.468], Madhukar Patil v. State of Maharashtra [2004(6)
Bom.C.R. 659], Sajeda Nihal Ahmed v. Malegaon Municipal
Corporation [2005(1) BomC.R.142], and Surjitsing Girniwale v.
Commissioner, Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation [2007(2)
Bom.C.R. 617].
17. We do not find merit in this submission in the light
of decision of the Apex Court in Kalpana Dilip Bahirat v. Pune
Municipal Corporation [2014 (15) SCC 654]. In this case, the
Appellant contested election to the Pune Municipal Corporation
from a seat reserved for Other Backward Class and filed as proof
of her caste, a caste certificate and caste validity certificate. The
Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation on receiving
patilsr / 14 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
information that the caste certificate on the basis of which the
Appellant contested the election was never actually issued by the
concerned caste scrutiny committee, passed an order holding
that the Appellant had not submitted genuine caste certificate
and hence her election was held to be ab-initio null and void and
declared that the seat of Pune Municipal Corporation had
become vacant retrospectively. The Appellant challenged this
order before the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition,
mainly on the ground that commissioner has no jurisdiction. The
High Court refused to entertain the challenge. The appellant
approached the Apex Court by way of special leave petition. The
Apex Court considered the provisions of sub-section (4) of section
10 of the Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act,2000 [for short “ the 2000 Act ”] and held that
election of a person who has contested on a seat reserved for the
any caste / tribe / category on false caste certificate as belonging
to such caste, tribe or class shall be deemed to have been
terminated retrospectively. The deeming provision in sub-section
patilsr / 15 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
(4) of section 10 of the 2000 Act is a statutory fiction which has to
be given effect to and the Commissioner of Municipal
Corporation has given effect to the deeming provision and has
thus acted in accordance with law. In the light of these
observations of the Apex Court we do not find merit in Mr.
Jahagridar's contention that municipal commissioner has no
jurisdiction.
18. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel then submitted
that for holding that a person has obtained caste certificate on
the basis of false or fraudulent claim, there has to be finding
recorded by the Committee on the basis of evidence to
substantiate such finding. He also submitted that mere
invalidation of caste claim by caste scrutiny committee will not
result in automatic disqualification and retrospective termination
of election of a candidate.
19. As far as first submission is concerned, the same is
without any substance inasmuch as the caste scrutiny committee
in the impugned order has recorded the finding that the
patilsr / 16 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
documents on the basis of which the petitioner has obtained the
caste certificate or the documents which were relied upon by the
petitioner to substantiate his caste that he belongs to Teli (OBC)
caste are bogus and fabricated. After scrutiny of these
documents afresh, we have have upheld the finding of the caste
scrutiny committee.
. So far as the second submission of Mr. Jahagirdar is
concerned, viz. the invalidation of the caste claim will not result in
automatic disqualification and retrospective termination of
election of a candidate, we find no merit in the same. Mr.
Jahagirdar in order to support his submission relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench in Mohan P. Goswami V.
Committee of Scrutiny of Caste [2003(5) Mh.L.J. 707]. He
submitted that this decision is followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in [Surendra Gandam V. State of Maharashtra
[2006(1) Mh.L.J. 308]. He also submitted that though two Full
Benches in Sujit Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra [2004(3)
Mh.L.J.1109] and Ramesh Suresh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
[2006(6) Bom.C.R.820] overruled the decision of this Court in
Mohan's case and Surendra Gandam's case (supra), another Full
patilsr / 17 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Bench in Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and
ors [2015(1), Mh.L.J.457] held that the Full Benches' decisions in
Sujit's case and Ramesh's case (supra) stand impliedly overruled.
Thus, Mr. Jahagirdar in order to substantiate his submission
heavily relied upon the latest decision of the Full Bench in Arun's
case (supra). In this case, the Full Bench was called upon to
decide the question whether relief of protection of service after
invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court
on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra [2012 (5) Mh.L.J.
(S.C.) 921]. The Full Bench considered several judgments and
came to the following conclusions which are recorded in
paragraph 75 :
“i) mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny
Committee would not entail the consequences of
withdrawal of benefits or discharge from the employment
or cancellation of appointments that have become final
prior to the decision in Milind's case on 28-11-2000,
(ii) upon invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny
Committee, the benefits obtained or appointments
secured from 28-11-2000 upto 18-10-2001 can be
withdrawn or cancelled, depending upon the terms of the
employment, if any, in writing,
(iii) the benefits obtained or appointments secured after
coming into force of the said Act on 18-10-2001 can be
withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of
the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee,
patilsr / 18 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
(iv) the benefit of protection in service upon invalidation of
the caste claim is available not only to the persons
belonging to “Koshti” and “Halba Koshti”, but it is also
available to the persons belonging to Special Backward
Class category on the same terms as is available to
“Koshti” and “Halba Koshti”, and
(v) the claim of the persons belonging to Nomadic Tribes,
Vimukta Jatis and Other Backward Class category shall be
decided on the lines of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of R. Unnikrishnan and another v. V. K.
Mahanudevan and others, reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J.
(S.C.)1= 2014(4) SCC 434.”
Perusal of the above conclusions unequivocally makes
it clear that the Full Bench judgment in Arun's case (supra) will
not come to the petitioner's rescue in the light of conclusion (iii)
of the above conclusions. Under clause (iii), the benefits obtained
th
after coming into force of the Act of 2000 on 18 October, 2001,
can be withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of
the caste claim by the scrutiny committee. In the present case,
the petitioner obtained the caste certificate that he belongs to
“Teli” caste in the year 2010. This caste certificate is invalidated
th
by the impugned order passed on 29 November, 2014. Thus, the
caste certificate was obtained and the same was invalidated
subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 2000. The
submission, therefore, cannot be accepted.
patilsr / 19 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
20. Mr. Jahagirdar also challenged the Circular/Order
th
dated 17 July, 2013, issued by the State Election Commission of
Maharashtra. By this Circular, the Municipal Commissioner is
authorized to pass a formal order declaring any Councilor as
disqualified on account of his caste claim being invalidated by the
caste scrutiny committee irrespective of pendency of election
petition in any competent Court. We are not inclined to entertain
the petitioner's challenge to the said Circular in the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Kalpana's case (supra). In terms of
this judgment, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation can
give effect to the order passed by the caste scrutiny committee
irrespective of the said circular issued by the State Election
Commission. That apart, we are also not inclined to entertain the
challenge to this Circular at the instance of the petitioner who
could not have contested the election of Solapur Municipal
Corporation on the basis of caste certificate which was obtained
by relying upon bogus and fabricated documents. It is settled law
that wide powers conferred upon the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked as a matter of
patilsr / 20 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
right. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case is such
that he cannot be permitted to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to
challenge the said Circular. Taking the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
. Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner at this stage prays for continuation of the interim
protection. Prayer is opposed by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. Since the caste
certificate was obtained by the Petitioner on bogus and
fabricated documents, we are not inclined to continue the stay.
Request for continuation of interim relief is, therefore, rejected.
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
patilsr / 21 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10913 OF 2014
Jagdish Revansiddha Patil. ]
Age : Adult, Occu : ]
R/a : 69, Bhavani Peth, ]
Tulzapur Ves Chowk, ]
Solapur, District Solapur. ]..Petitioner.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra through its
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
]
]
]
]
2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee No.1, Soapuar, having its
office at Dr. Babasaheb Amedkar
Bhavan, Opposite Afzalpurkar
Mangal Karyalaya, Satrasta, Solapur
]
]
]
]
]
]
3] Commissioner for Solapur Municipal
Corporation having office at Solapur.
]
]
]
4] Election Commission of State of
Maharashtra.
]
]
]
5] Shri. Anil Sambhaji Gavai, at – 1176,
North kasba Tilak Chowk, Solapur.
]
] ..Respondents.
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for
the Petitioner.
Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. M. Kulkarni i/b
M. R. Deshpande for Respondent No. 5.
patilsr 1 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Mr. R. S. Alange and Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for Respondent No.
3.
Mr. P. G. Kathane, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. B. Shetye, Mrs. D. S. Mondkar, Ms. Shreya Jadhav for
Respondent No. 4.
Coram : RANJIT MORE &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
Arguments were heard on : October 14, 2016.
Judgment pronounced on : October 21, 2016.
Oral Judgment (Per Ranjit More, J.) :
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment
th
and order dated 29 November 2014 passed by the caste scrutiny
nd
committee, Solapur, the order dated 2 December 2014 passed
by the Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation and the
th
circular / order dated 17 July 2013 issued by the State Election
Commissioner, Maharashtra State.
th
2. By the order dated 29 November 2014, the caste
scrutiny committee invalidated the Petitioner's caste claim that
he belongs to “Teli” caste, which is notified as Other Backward
Class [for short “OBC”]. On the basis of above order of the caste
scrutiny committee, the Commissioner of Solapur Municipal
patilsr 2 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
nd
Corporation passed the order dated 2 December 2014 thereby
declaring that the Petitioner is disqualified and that his seat is
th
deemed to have fallen vacant. By the circular dated 17 July
2013, the State Election Commission has authorised the
Commissioners of Municipal Corporations to pass formal order of
declaring any councillor as disqualified on account of his caste
claim being invalidated by the caste scrutiny committee
irrespective of the pendency of any election petition.
3. In order to support his caste claim that he belongs
to “Teli” caste, the Petitioner has mainly relied upon the following
documents :
nd
[1] Birth Extract dated 22 April 1934 of Revansiddha
Muttyappa Patil, father of the Petitioner.
th
[2] Birth extract dated 25 March 1936 of Apparao
Muttyappa Patil, real uncle of the Petitioner.
st
[3] Loan receipt dated 21 October 1954 on Six Anna
Stamp given by Revansiddha, fatehr of the Petitioner
to Fulchand Kashinath Heblekar.
th
[4] Loan receipt dated 28 June 1955 on 1½ stamp given
by Revansidha Mutyappa Patil to Basappa
Satlingappa Aadake.
patilsr 3 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
th
[5] Khoti Receipt dated 13 January 1931 beween
Mutyappa Apparao Patil and Bhimu Basappa Patil.
4. The caste scrutiny committee called for the report
from vigilance cell. The officers of the vigilance cell accordingly
examined the original documents from Tahisldar's office as well
as from the custody of Petitioner and submitted report to the
caste scrutiny committee. So far as the first two documents are
concerned, the vigilance cell formed an opinion that entries
therein appear to be suspicious. Regarding rest of the three
documents, the vigilance cell has not given any adverse remark.
So far as first two documents are concerned, the scrutiny
committee relied upon report of the vigilance cell. In addition to
this, the caste scrutiny committee examined original documents
relied upon by Respondent No.5 and concluded that first two
documents relied upon by the Petitioner to support his caste
claim are bogus and fabricated. As far as document No.3 and 4
st th
namely, loan receipts dated 21 October 1954 and 28 June 1955,
are concerned, the caste scrutiny committee held that on these
documents there is no signature of Petitioner's father. It was
further found that though stamps on which these receipts were
patilsr 4 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
transcribed were purchased by Fulchand Heblekar and Basappa
Aadake and executed by them, there is vast difference in their
signatures made at the time of purchase of stamp and signatures
made at the time of execution of the document. The Caste
scrutiny committee therefore concluded that these two receipts
are bogus and fabricated. Regarding the last document, namely,
Khoti receipt, the caste scrutiny committee found that the same is
on simple paper and not registered therefore refused to take the
same into consideration.
5. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the caste scrutiny committee ought to
have called for the original record from the tahsildar's office
before arriving at the conclusion in respect of the first two
documents. He further submitted that without verifying the
same, the conclusion in respect of these documents could not
have been arrived at by the committee. He also submitted that
the finding of the caste scrutiny committee about the
interpolation of words or entires in the record is not sustainable
without calling for the expert opinion or without doing exercise of
patilsr 5 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
comparison between the disputed hand-writing and admitted
hand-writing. Regarding the loan receipts, Mr. Jahagridar relied
upon the report of the vigilance cell. In this regard, he submitted
that loan receipts were executed in the year 1954-55 and
therefore have more probative value and the caste scrutiny
committee could not have discarded these receipts. With respect
to the last document, Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that merely
because document is not registered, the committee could not
have refused to take the same into consideration for ascertaining
the caste claim of the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent no.5, on the contrary, vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by Mr. Jahagirdar and supported the
findings recorded by the caste scrutiny committee. Mr.
Kumbhakoni submitted that on the face of it, the above
documents are bogus and fabricated. He also relied upon other
documents relied upon by Respondent No.5 before the caste
scrutiny committee to contest the Petitioner's caste claim as
belonging to Teli caste.
patilsr 6 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
7. The above documents are in modi script.
Translation thereof in Marathi has been placed on record.
Original of the first two documents is in the custody of Tahsildar,
Akkalkot. We have called the original registers and examined the
same. Photocopies of rest of the three documents are annexed
to the petition. We have examined originals documents, which
were tendered by Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner for our examination. We have returned the
originals after verifying the same.
8. The first and second documents are birth extract
nd th
dated 22 April 1934 and 25 March 1936 respectively of
Revansidha and Apparao, father and uncle of the Petitioner. Both
these documents indicate “Teli” to be the caste of Petitioner's
father and uncle. The said birth extract relate to the village
Badhole, Taluka Akkalkot. As stated above, vigilance cell after
examining the record opined that these entries appear to be
suspicious and this opinion is accepted by the committee.
patilsr 7 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
9. So far as the Birth and Death Register of village
Badhole for the year 1934 is concerned, there are total 56 entries
of birth and 12 entries of death. There is difference in the font of
letter, ink and style of writing between Entry Nos. 1 to 23 and
Entry No.24 to 56. We have also perused the Birth and Death
Register of village Badhole for the year 1936. There are total 76
entries of birth and 23 entries of death. There is vast difference
in the font of letter, ink and style of writing so far as Entry Nos.1
to 38 and Entry Nos. 39 to 72 are concerned. On perusal of Birth
and Death Registers of village Badhole for the years 1934 and
1936, we found that names of the fathers in the Birth and Death
Register for the year 1934 for birth at entry numbers 24 to 56 and
names of fathers in the Birth and Death Register for the year
1936 for birth at entry numbers 39 to 72 are the same. Thus, it
shows that the persons who gave birth to the children in the year
1934, the very same persons have again given birth to the
children in the year 1936 in the same chronology. The report of
vigilance cell also discloses that the enquiry was made in village
Badhole in which it was revealed that most of the persons shown
in the above entries were not resident of village Badhole.
patilsr 8 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
th
10. Be that as it may, birth extract dated 8 December
1937 of Apparao Mutyappa Patil, i.e., the Petitioner's uncle is
issued by Tahsildar, Akkalkot. It relates to village Nanhegaon,
Taluka Akkalkot. In this birth extract, the caste of the Petitioner's
uncle shown is “Veershaiv Lingayat”. Thus, there are two birth
extracts of the Petitioner's uncle, one at village Badhole and
another one at village Nanhegaon. In former, the caste of the
Petitioner's uncle is shown as “Teli”. But in the latter, it is shown
as Veershaiv Lingayat. In addition to this, vigilance cell also
examined the Birth and Death Registers concerning village
Nanhegaon for the years 1944-45 and 1967. At serial number 2,
in the Birth and Death Register of village Nanhegaon for the year
1944-45, there is entry of birth of Petitioner's aunt–Limbabai.
th
The entry shows that the Petitioner's said aunt was born on 11
June 1944. At serial No.12 in the Birth and Death Register
pertaining to village Nanhegaon for the year 1967, death entry of
the Petitioner's grand-father - Muthyappa is shown. It shows that
st
the Petitioner's grand-father expired on 31 June 1967. Thus, the
entries with regard to the birth and death of Petitioner's uncle,
patilsr 9 / 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
aunt and grand-father are at village Nanhegaon. The report of
the vigilance cell further shows that agricultural properties as
well as residential houses of the Petitioner and his forefather are
at village Nanhegaon. This fact shows that the Petitioner and his
forefather are resident of village Nanhegaon, taluka Akkalkot and
there was no reason to record the entries of birth of the
Petitioner's father and uncle in the birth and death registers at
village Badhole. We therefore agree with the finding of the caste
scrutiny committee in respect of these entries.
rd
11. The 3 document is the loan receipt executed on 6
anna stamp paper. The said stamp paper was purchased by
th
Fulchand Kashinath Heblekar on 20 October 1954 under his own
st
signature. This receipt was executed on 21 October 1954 and at
the bottom, it is signed by said Fulchand. Though this receipt is
shown to have been executed in favour the Petitioner's father,
there is no signature of Petitioner's father on this receipt. The
signature of Fulchand on the date of purchase and on the date of
execution of this paper, i.e., signatures at the top and bottom of
the document are substantially different. This can be easily
patilsr / 10 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
discerned, without any external assistance. We therefore agree
with the conclusion of the caste scrutiny committee that this
document is also bogus and fabricated one.
12. 1½ Anna stamp paper for execution of loan receipt
th
dated 28 June 1955 has been purchased by Basappa
Satilingappa Aadake under his own signature. The said loan
receipt is stated to have been executed by said Basappa S.
Aadake in favour of the Petitioner's father. On this document
too, there is no signature of the Petitioner's father. Executant
Basappa had signed this document at the time of purchase by
putting his signature at the top and he had also signed the said
document as executant, at the bottom of the document. On
examination, we find that these signatures of Basappa, at the top
and bottom of the said document, are substantially different
from each other. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this
document is also bogus and fabricated one and we agree with the
conclusion of the caste scrutiny committee about this document.
13. The last document is Khoti receipt. The same is on
patilsr / 11 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
plain paper. It is not registered one and therefore we do not find
any ground to interfere with the conclusion of the caste scrutiny
committee about this document.
14. We do not find merit in the submission of Mr.
Jahagirdar that caste scrutiny committee ought to have called for
the original record from the Tahsildar's office and verified the
same and sent it for verification to the hand-writing expert,
inasmuch as we have personally perused the record and arrived
at conclusion that the disputed entries are bogus. The record
reveals that the Petitioner and his forefather are residents of
village Nanhegaon, which fact is fortified by the documentary
evidence and therefore there was no reason to make entries of
birth of the Petitioner's father and uncle in the Birth and Death
Register of village Badhole.
15. The caste scrutiny committee in addition to above,
also considered several documents relied upon by Respondent
No. 5. A brief reference to those documents at this stage would
be necessary. In two school leaving certificates produced by
patilsr / 12 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Respondent No. 5, the caste of the Petitioner is shown as Hindu.
The caste of the Petitioner's brothers namely, Sunilkumar and
Rajshekhar in their school leaving certificates is shown as Virshaiv
Lingayat. The caste of the anut of the Petitioner, namely, Mangla
Patil and Limbabai Patil is shown as Hindu Lingayat in their
respective school leaving certificates. The caste of both the sons
of the Petitioner, namely, Amit and Sumit in their school leaving
certificate is also shown as Hindu Lingayat. The caste of cousin
brother of the Petitioner, namely, Dajiba is shown as Hindu
Lingayat. The caste of the Petitioner's father in his death
certificate is shown as Virshiav Lingayat. Thus, except two
documents which are relied upon by the Petitioner, in all other
documents the caste of the Petitioner and his near relatives is
shown either to be Hindu or Lingayat. The committee, in our
opinion, considered the claim of the Petitioner from correct
perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Having
rescrutinised the said documents, we find that first two
documents relied upon by the Petitioner are bogus and
fabricated.
patilsr / 13 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
16. Mr. Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner also submitted that the Commissioner of Solapur
Municipal Corporation has no role or authority to pass order
regarding disqualification of the councillor and therefore, order
nd
passed by him on 2 December 2014 is without jurisdiction. In
this regard, Mr. Jahagirdar relied upon various decisions, namely,
Noor Jahan M. Aslam Ansari v. State of Maharashtra [2004 (2)
BomC.R.468], Madhukar Patil v. State of Maharashtra [2004(6)
Bom.C.R. 659], Sajeda Nihal Ahmed v. Malegaon Municipal
Corporation [2005(1) BomC.R.142], and Surjitsing Girniwale v.
Commissioner, Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation [2007(2)
Bom.C.R. 617].
17. We do not find merit in this submission in the light
of decision of the Apex Court in Kalpana Dilip Bahirat v. Pune
Municipal Corporation [2014 (15) SCC 654]. In this case, the
Appellant contested election to the Pune Municipal Corporation
from a seat reserved for Other Backward Class and filed as proof
of her caste, a caste certificate and caste validity certificate. The
Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation on receiving
patilsr / 14 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
information that the caste certificate on the basis of which the
Appellant contested the election was never actually issued by the
concerned caste scrutiny committee, passed an order holding
that the Appellant had not submitted genuine caste certificate
and hence her election was held to be ab-initio null and void and
declared that the seat of Pune Municipal Corporation had
become vacant retrospectively. The Appellant challenged this
order before the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition,
mainly on the ground that commissioner has no jurisdiction. The
High Court refused to entertain the challenge. The appellant
approached the Apex Court by way of special leave petition. The
Apex Court considered the provisions of sub-section (4) of section
10 of the Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act,2000 [for short “ the 2000 Act ”] and held that
election of a person who has contested on a seat reserved for the
any caste / tribe / category on false caste certificate as belonging
to such caste, tribe or class shall be deemed to have been
terminated retrospectively. The deeming provision in sub-section
patilsr / 15 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
(4) of section 10 of the 2000 Act is a statutory fiction which has to
be given effect to and the Commissioner of Municipal
Corporation has given effect to the deeming provision and has
thus acted in accordance with law. In the light of these
observations of the Apex Court we do not find merit in Mr.
Jahagridar's contention that municipal commissioner has no
jurisdiction.
18. Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel then submitted
that for holding that a person has obtained caste certificate on
the basis of false or fraudulent claim, there has to be finding
recorded by the Committee on the basis of evidence to
substantiate such finding. He also submitted that mere
invalidation of caste claim by caste scrutiny committee will not
result in automatic disqualification and retrospective termination
of election of a candidate.
19. As far as first submission is concerned, the same is
without any substance inasmuch as the caste scrutiny committee
in the impugned order has recorded the finding that the
patilsr / 16 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
documents on the basis of which the petitioner has obtained the
caste certificate or the documents which were relied upon by the
petitioner to substantiate his caste that he belongs to Teli (OBC)
caste are bogus and fabricated. After scrutiny of these
documents afresh, we have have upheld the finding of the caste
scrutiny committee.
. So far as the second submission of Mr. Jahagirdar is
concerned, viz. the invalidation of the caste claim will not result in
automatic disqualification and retrospective termination of
election of a candidate, we find no merit in the same. Mr.
Jahagirdar in order to support his submission relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench in Mohan P. Goswami V.
Committee of Scrutiny of Caste [2003(5) Mh.L.J. 707]. He
submitted that this decision is followed by another Division
Bench of this Court in [Surendra Gandam V. State of Maharashtra
[2006(1) Mh.L.J. 308]. He also submitted that though two Full
Benches in Sujit Vasant Patil v. State of Maharashtra [2004(3)
Mh.L.J.1109] and Ramesh Suresh Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
[2006(6) Bom.C.R.820] overruled the decision of this Court in
Mohan's case and Surendra Gandam's case (supra), another Full
patilsr / 17 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
Bench in Arun Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and
ors [2015(1), Mh.L.J.457] held that the Full Benches' decisions in
Sujit's case and Ramesh's case (supra) stand impliedly overruled.
Thus, Mr. Jahagirdar in order to substantiate his submission
heavily relied upon the latest decision of the Full Bench in Arun's
case (supra). In this case, the Full Bench was called upon to
decide the question whether relief of protection of service after
invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court
on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra [2012 (5) Mh.L.J.
(S.C.) 921]. The Full Bench considered several judgments and
came to the following conclusions which are recorded in
paragraph 75 :
“i) mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny
Committee would not entail the consequences of
withdrawal of benefits or discharge from the employment
or cancellation of appointments that have become final
prior to the decision in Milind's case on 28-11-2000,
(ii) upon invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny
Committee, the benefits obtained or appointments
secured from 28-11-2000 upto 18-10-2001 can be
withdrawn or cancelled, depending upon the terms of the
employment, if any, in writing,
(iii) the benefits obtained or appointments secured after
coming into force of the said Act on 18-10-2001 can be
withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of
the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee,
patilsr / 18 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
(iv) the benefit of protection in service upon invalidation of
the caste claim is available not only to the persons
belonging to “Koshti” and “Halba Koshti”, but it is also
available to the persons belonging to Special Backward
Class category on the same terms as is available to
“Koshti” and “Halba Koshti”, and
(v) the claim of the persons belonging to Nomadic Tribes,
Vimukta Jatis and Other Backward Class category shall be
decided on the lines of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of R. Unnikrishnan and another v. V. K.
Mahanudevan and others, reported in 2014(4) Mh.L.J.
(S.C.)1= 2014(4) SCC 434.”
Perusal of the above conclusions unequivocally makes
it clear that the Full Bench judgment in Arun's case (supra) will
not come to the petitioner's rescue in the light of conclusion (iii)
of the above conclusions. Under clause (iii), the benefits obtained
th
after coming into force of the Act of 2000 on 18 October, 2001,
can be withdrawn or cancelled immediately upon invalidation of
the caste claim by the scrutiny committee. In the present case,
the petitioner obtained the caste certificate that he belongs to
“Teli” caste in the year 2010. This caste certificate is invalidated
th
by the impugned order passed on 29 November, 2014. Thus, the
caste certificate was obtained and the same was invalidated
subsequent to the coming into force of the Act of 2000. The
submission, therefore, cannot be accepted.
patilsr / 19 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
20. Mr. Jahagirdar also challenged the Circular/Order
th
dated 17 July, 2013, issued by the State Election Commission of
Maharashtra. By this Circular, the Municipal Commissioner is
authorized to pass a formal order declaring any Councilor as
disqualified on account of his caste claim being invalidated by the
caste scrutiny committee irrespective of pendency of election
petition in any competent Court. We are not inclined to entertain
the petitioner's challenge to the said Circular in the light of the
decision of the Apex Court in Kalpana's case (supra). In terms of
this judgment, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation can
give effect to the order passed by the caste scrutiny committee
irrespective of the said circular issued by the State Election
Commission. That apart, we are also not inclined to entertain the
challenge to this Circular at the instance of the petitioner who
could not have contested the election of Solapur Municipal
Corporation on the basis of caste certificate which was obtained
by relying upon bogus and fabricated documents. It is settled law
that wide powers conferred upon the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked as a matter of
patilsr / 20 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::
wp-10913/14.
right. The conduct of the petitioner in the present case is such
that he cannot be permitted to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to
challenge the said Circular. Taking the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
. Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner at this stage prays for continuation of the interim
protection. Prayer is opposed by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5. Since the caste
certificate was obtained by the Petitioner on bogus and
fabricated documents, we are not inclined to continue the stay.
Request for continuation of interim relief is, therefore, rejected.
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
patilsr / 21 21
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:12:52 :::