Petitioner sought to enforce verification of caste certificates for reserved constituency candidates under the Maharashtra 2000 Act. The High Court observed State amendments allowing pending applications and imposed retrospective disqualification for non-verification, noting the Petitioner accepted these measures.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appellate Side
PIL No.26 of 2003
Mohammed Ali Kudubuddin Shaikh .. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Rajeev Matkar i/by Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar for
petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Patil, AGP for respondents.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
V.M. KANADE, JJ.
DATED : 11th January 2007
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Petition makes a submission that it
is the responsibility of the State to see to it
that the benefit of reservation in the reserved
constituency ought to go to the genuine reserved
category candidates. The State has passed the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Denotified Tribes, (Vimukt Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification
of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short "the
said Act"). Under the said Act there is a
mechanism to get a caste certificate scrutinised.
Section 6(2) of the said Act provided that any
-2-
person desirous of availing of the benefits of
such a reserved status may make an application
well in time to the concerned Scrutiny Committee
for verification. The grievance is that such
verification is not obtained and, therefore,
persons not belonging to the particular categories
contest the elections.
3. Mr.Patil, learned AGP, has brought to our
notice the amendment which the State Government
has brought about to this Act and particularly
Section 9AA which has been introduced therein.
This amendment has come into force from 19th
August 2006. This Section 9AA provides that when
any candidate files a nomination paper for a
reserved seat, he shall be required to submit
along with the nomination paper a caste
certificate and the validity certificate issued by
the Scrutiny Committee.
4. Mr.Patil very fairly pointed out that
although this provision came into force, the
representations are made to the State Government
that there are candidates who have made such
applications to the Scrutiny Committee and their
applications are pending determination. It was
submitted by them that they should not be made to
-3-
suffer. Hence, appropriate amendments were made
to Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Act, Section 5B of the Mumbai Provincial Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949, Section 9AA of the City of
Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 and Section 9A of
the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar
Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
All these amendments provided that if a candidate
while filing nomination produces a true copy of
the application to the Scrutiny Committee and gives
an undertaking that he will obtain a validity
certificate within three months, he will be
permitted to contest the election in the absence
of the validity certificate. There is, however, a
proviso to this provision that in the event the
candidate fails to obtain this certificate from
the Scrutiny Committee within three months from
the date of his election, his election shall be
deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and
the person concerned shall be disqualified for
being a Councillor.
5. Mr.Matkar fairly accepts that these
amendments satisfy the question which is raised in
the Petition.
6. The Petition is, therefore, not being
pressed and the same stands disposed of as not
pressed.
-4-
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether reservation benefits should be restricted to genuine reserved category candidates verified via caste certificates.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Ali Kudubuddin Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
H.L. GOKHALE
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
H.L. GOKHALE and V.M. KANADE
Parties & counsel