Bombay High Court
Smt. Archana Raju Wadnal vs Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar on 3 October, 2017
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
Sharayu.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2017
Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar ...Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, ...Respondents
Solapur, Ambedkar Bhawan
Satrasta, Solapur & Ors.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2327 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2017
Smt. Archana Raju Wadnal ...Applicant
In the matter between
Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar ...Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & ...Respondents
Ors.
----------
Mr. A.B. Tajane, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, for the Applicant in Civil Application.
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 00:38:10 :::
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondents No. 1, 4 and 5.
Mr. I.M. Khairadi, for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.B. Shetye, for Respondent No. 3.
----------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 3 October 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.]
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. The Petitioner has in the present Petition sought
direction against the Respondent No. 2 that till the decision of
the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1-
Committee and till the serving of the copy of the decision to the
Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 be restrained from
disqualifying the Petitioner in view of the Section 5B of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
3. The brief background of the facts are necessary. The
Petitioner has been elected as a candidate in the election of the
Solapur Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner had contested
the election as candidate of Congress (I) party for the seat
available for OBC category. The Petitioner at the time of filling
election form, submitted the documents in support of her caste
case claiming as "Tambat" OBC on the basis of her husband's
caste and not her father's caste. The Petitioner's election form
was accordingly accepted. The Petitioner upon submitting her
caste claim as Tambat OBC had been elected as Corporator of
Solapur Municipal Corporation in the election conducted in
February 2017. The Respondent No. 1-Committee had thereafter
directed the Petitioner to submit the caste of her father's side
and accordingly, the Petitioner had submitted the documents of
her father's side which supported the caste claim of "Lohar NT".
It appears that the State Election Commission on 10 March 2017
informed the Secretary of Town Planning Department,
Mantralaya that the orders regarding cancellation of election of
a candidate should be passed with retrospective effect. The
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
Caste Scrutiny Committee at Solapur had sent the file of the
Petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Beed. The Special
Divisional Officer, Parali, District Beed sent letter dated 22 June
2017 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Beed informing them
that the Petitioner had been issued the caste certificate of Lohar
caste from the office of Collector, Beed. The caste validity
procedure was started at Beed before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Beed in July 2017. The Petitioner had requested the
Director of BARTI (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Research &
Training Institute, Pune) to decide the caste claim at the
earliest. It was also informed that in the event the caste claim is
not decided before the cut off date, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee at Solapur will be responsible for the same. The
Caste Scrutiny Committee at Solapur had on 28 July 2017
informed the Petitioner that since the President and Secretary of
the Committee was not available, the decision could not be
taken on the caste validity. The Petitioner again by
correspondence dated 2 August 2017 requested the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Solapur for giving the caste validity. In
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
view of the delay in decision of the caste claim of the Petitioner
by the Respondent No. 1-Committee, the present Writ Petition
has been filed.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
submitted that the Petitioner had submitted all requisite
documents in support of her caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Solapur. The Petitioner had provided the Caste
Certificate from her father's side. The Petitioner should have
been given the caste validity of Lohar caste based upon the
Caste Certificate issued by the Authority within the jurisdiction
of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Beed. The documents from the
father's side of the Petitioner shows the caste of the Petitioner as
Lohar-NT-B. The Caste Validity Certificate has been given to the
son and daughter of the real brother of the Petitioner apart from
being given to the father of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that there is no fault
of the Petitioner in not producing the Caste Validity Certificate
within the cut off i.e. six months from the date of election, as
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
the Respondent No. 1-Committee kept pending the Caste
Scrutiny case of the Petitioner from 27 January 2017 i.e. over a
period of six months from the date of the election. He has
therefore, submitted that although the Petitioner had submitted
her caste claim as Tambat OBC from her husband's side and had
contested the election under that caste and obtained seat
available for the candidate of OBC category, the Petitioner had
thereafter, complied with the requisition of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee and had furnished the documents of father's side in
support of her caste claim as Lohar NT. He has therefore,
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 should not disqualified the
Petitioner in view of Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949.
5. The learned AGP has submitted that it is very clear
from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
Petitioner cannot rely on the caste of her husband's side as
Tambat OBC and contest the election under that caste. He has
submitted that the Petitioner has been elected as Corporator of
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
the Solapur Municipal Corporation as candidate of the OBC
category solely on the basis of her husband's caste. He has
submitted that there is no merit in the Petition, as the Petitioner
is now seeking validity of her caste from her father's side after
having been elected as Corporator. He has submitted that the
period of six months has also expired since the date of filing her
Caste Certificate for the contesting election and for seeking seat
available for the candidate of OBC category. He has therefore,
submitted that the present Petition ought to be dismissed.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions. We
find that the issue of whether a woman by virtue of her
marriage can rely upon her husband's caste and claim
entitlement to the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Castes
and/or be entitled to contest the election for the seat reserved
for a Scheduled Castes candidate has been answered by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Meera Kanwaria Vs.
Sunita & Ors1. relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
1 2006(1) SCC 344
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
in Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others 2 after
reviewing the entire law on the subject in paragraph 24, held
thus:-
"It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that a
person who is a high caste Hindu and not subjected to
any social or educational or backwardness in his life,
by reason of marriage alone cannot ipso facto become
a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In
the absence of any strict proof he cannot be allowed to
defeat the very provisions made by the reserving
certain seats for disadvantaged people."
It is thus clear that a married woman cannot by
relying on her husband's caste claim entitlement to contest
election for the seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
7. In the present case, the Petitioner has admittedly,
relied upon the caste of her husband, who belongs to the
2 (1996)3 SCC 545
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
Tambat OBC and by virtue of her caste case as belonging to the
Tambat OBC had been elected as a Corporator in the election of
Solapur Municipal Corporation conducted in February 2017. We
therefore, find no merit in the Petitioner's case that she had
made out a caste case and had thereafter, submitted her caste
claim from her father's side and that it was the Respondent No.
1-Committee who had kept pending the Caste Scrutiny case of
the Petitioner from 27 January 2017 and hence, no fault could
be found with the Petitioner in not producing the Caste Validity
Certificate within six months from the date of the election.
8. We are of the view that the Petitioner has been
wrongfully elected as Corporator based on the caste case from
her husband's side. We are therefore of the view that the
Petition deserves to be dismissed, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meera Kanwaria (supra).
9. We accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition with no
order as to costs.
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has
applied for stay of this order. We reject the application in light
of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In view of having dismissed the Writ Petition,
the Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.]
