Disposed

Arti Pratap Sonwane @ Arti Hiraman Sapkale v. the Delhi Development Authority and Another

Bombay HC17 Feb 2014WP/1396/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Delhi Development Authority's request to verify her caste certificate. The Court held that Section 3 of the 2001 Act did not mandate verification for this scenario, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with the clarification that the petitioner is not bound by the suggestions in the SDO's communication regarding verification.

Arti Pratap Sonwane @ Arti Hiraman… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

1396.14 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1396 OF 2014

¶5

Smt. Arti w/o. Pratap Sonawane
@ Arti Hiraman Sapkale

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Delhi Development Authority
LIG (Housing) 2nd Floor, D-Block,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-023 and
Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawal.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr.A.R. Salve, Advocate h/f. Mr. R.D. Biradar,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶13

PER COURT:-

¶14

1] Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

¶15

2]The query of the Delhi Development Authority
was restricted. The said authority desired to verify,
as to whether the caste certificate produced before it
by the petitioner in respect of her being a Scheduled
Tribe, is issued by the office of the S.D.O., Bhusawal
Division, Bhusawal.

¶16

3]While confirming that, it was so issued, the

¶17

{2}

¶18

1396.14 wp.odt

¶19

SDO has invited attention of the Delhi Development
Authority to the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis)
Nomadic Tribes, Other backward Class and Special
Backward Class (Regulation of issuance and
verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2001, and
rules framed thereunder.

¶20

4]With the assistance of the learned advocate
appearing for the parties, we have perused the
communication at page 18. It is submitted this
communication at page 18 Exhibit E, was issued in the
light of Section 3 of the said Act of 2001, which
reads as under :-

¶21

“ApplicationforaCaste
Certificate :- Any person belonging to any
of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes,
De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category, required to produce a
Caste Certificate in order to claim the
benefit of any reservation provided of such
castes, Tribes or Classes, either in any
public employment or for admission into any
education institution, or any other benefit
under any special provisions made under
Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution
of India or for the purpose of contesting
for elective post in any local authority or
in the cooperative societies; or for
purchase or transfer of land from a tribal
land holder or any other purposes specified
by the Government, shall apply in such form
and in such manner, as may be prescribed, to
be Competent Authority for the issue of a
Caste Certificate.”

¶22

5]A bare perusal thereof would indicate that
the caste certificate can be applied for and for the

¶23

{3}

¶24

1396.14 wp.odt

¶25

purposes of claiming the benefit of any reservation,
provided to the caste, tribe or class.

¶26

6]However, what this communication at page 18
states is that, caste certificate has been issued by
the SDO Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal, but, it should be
referred for verification to the scrutiny committee in
terms of the said Act.

¶27

7]We are of the opinion that if verification
of such caste certificate was contemplated, the Act
would have specified in express terms that the such
verification is mandated in cases even of the present
nature.

¶28

8]In the present case, the petitioner has
approached a distinct authority, namely, Delhi
Development Authority. The said authority notified a
scheme for obtaining flats in a scheme known as,
“Delhi Development Authority Housing Scheme of 2011”.

¶29

9]The respondent No.1 declared the results of
Draws/Lots on 18/4/2011. The petitioner's application
has been selected under Scheduled Tribe category and
after the result of the Draw, the Delhi Development
Authority, published the names of the applicants.
Petitioner's name is also appearing as a successful
allottee, under the LIG category.

¶30

10]Thepetitionerappearedbeforethe
authorities, namely, respondent No.1, with the
original document, including the original caste

¶31

{4}

¶32

1396.14 wp.odt

¶33

certificate. However, that original documents were
sought to be verified by the respondent No.1 and that
is how it raised a query with the SDO, Bhusawal
Division, Bhusawal, as to whether, the certificate of
caste issued in favour of the petitioner has been
issued by the said office of not.

¶34

11]Possibly, going by the subject of this
communication, that the respondent No.2 conveyed to
the said respondent No.1, that the said caste
certificate was indeed issued by respondent No.1.
However, same should be got verified. Possibly,
because this suggestion is given, that the petitioner
apprehends that the caste certificate will not be
accepted, without such verification and scrutiny.

¶35

12]We do not see any basis for this
apprehension of the petitioner. Once the verification
of the caste certificate and the scrutiny was for a
specified purpose and in terms of the Act No. 23 of
2001, then, petitioner's apprehension is not well
founded. The confirmation as sought by another
authority and in a distinct State about the issuance
of caste certificate will not automatically mean that
the caste certificate will be sent for scrutiny and
verification.

¶36

13]The SDO would not be required to do, any of
these things as is clear from the tenor of the latter.
The later part of the letter at Annexure E is only a
suggestion and nothing more. We, therefore, do not
think that the respondent No.1 would be bound by the

¶37

{5} 1396.14 wp.odt

¶38

contents of the further part of this communication.

¶39

14]In the light of the above clarification, we
are of the opinion that there is absolutely no
confusion and apprehension that the petitioner
entertained is completely baseless.

¶40

15]Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶42

grt/-

Arti Pratap Sonwane @ Arti Hiraman Sapkale v. the Delhi Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Pratap Sonwane @ Arti Hiraman Sapkale v. the Delhi Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayed Furkhan Shah Sayed Sadiq Shah Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh Mohammed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Atmaram Shesrao Hinge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Trimurti Pawan Pratishthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.

Sudhakar Ukhardu Sapkal Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Suklal Bhadane and Another Vs Deboji Chanchal Mukherjee and Others