Smt. Kalmati Ramkrupal Yadav vs Chandrapur City Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8404 Bom

                                                                 Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2020

Smt. Kalmati Ramkrupal Yadav
Aged 55 years, Occ. Social Worker,
R/o Durga Temple Area, Rahetwari,                           Petitioner
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur
                   Versus
Chandrapur    City     Municipal
Corporation     through       its
Commissioner Chandrapur City                               Respondent
Municipal Corporation, Mahatrma
Gandhi Chowk, Mahatma Gandhi
Bhawan,     Chandrapur,    Dist.
Chandrapur

Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent.

                                       CORAM :    MANISH PITALE, J.
                         RESERVED ON :            18/06/2021
                  PRONOUNCED ON :                 24/06/2021

JUDGMENT

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the

learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition

is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.

Kolhe                                                                        PAGE 1    OF 22





                                                                 Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(3)                        The spread of COVID-19 virus and consequent

countrywide lockdown imposed in March 2020 has led to a situation wherein

the petitioner claims that she has been wrongly held to be disqualified from

holding the elected post of member of the Chandrapur Municipal

Corporation. The petitioner claims that the impugned order dated

23/06/2021 passed by the respondent is rendered unsustainable, although it is

based on a mandatory provision of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations

Act, 1949, because of the situation created by the aforesaid lock-down and

orders passed in that context by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a suo-moto

proceeding, with a view to provide succour to individuals like the petitioner

who were caught unawares in the crisis created by the COVID-19 virus.

(4) The petitioner was elected as Member of the Municipal

Corporation of Chandrapur from a seat reserved for the Other Backward Class

(women category). By a notification issued on 23/06/2019 by the Election

Officer of the respondent Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was declared

as elected. A certificate dated 24/06/2019 issued by the Election Officer of

the respondent Municipal Corporation certified that the petitioner stood

elected under the said category of reservation.

Kolhe                                                                       PAGE 2    OF 22





                                                                Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(5)                        As per Section 5B of the aforesaid Act, a person

contesting election for a reserved seat is mandatorily required to submit Caste

Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, as also Validity Certificate

issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee along with the nomination paper.

Proviso to the Section 5B of the said Act specifies that a person from the

reserved category who has applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for

verification of caste certificate can also file nomination and contest the

election, provided Caste Validity Certificate is produced within a period of

twelve months from the date of election of such person. It is further

specifically stated in the proviso that if Validity Certificate is not produced

within the aforesaid period of twelve months, the election of such person shall

be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and she shall be

disqualified from being a Member.

(6) In the present case, it is undisputed that when the

petitioner filed her nomination paper to contest from the aforesaid reserved

seat, she had already applied before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for grant of

Caste Validity Certificate. Therefore, as per the proviso to Section 5B of the

aforesaid Act, she was required to produce Caste Validity Certificate within a

period of twelve months from being elected. The said period expired on

23/06/2020.

Kolhe                                                                      PAGE 3    OF 22





                                                                    Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(7)                        The respondent Corporation through its Commissioner

passed the impugned order dated 23/06/2020, holding that the election of the

petitioner stood terminated with retrospective effect and she stood disqualified

from being a Member in the respondent Corporation, in view of the fact that

the twelve months period specified in proviso to Section 5B of the said Act,

expired on the said day and the petitioner had admittedly failed to produce the

Caste Validity Certificate.

(8) The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging

the said order, primarily on the basis that although she had taken all possible

steps on her part before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for grant of Caste

Validity Certificate, but, due to the sudden countrywide lock-down imposed

on 22/03/2020 following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee could not hold sittings and the application filed by the petitioner

could not be decided. The petitioner claimed that the drastic consequence of

deemed termination of election of the petitioner with retrospective effect and

her disqualification ought not to visit her under Section 5B of the said Act, as

the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent lock-down had created an

unprecedented and unimagined situation, wherein the mandatory

requirement of law could not be satisfied.

Kolhe                                                                          PAGE 4    OF 22





                                                                    Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(9)                        It was also stated in the Writ Petition that as soon as the

Caste Scrutiny Committee could resume its work, the petitioner pursued the

matter and on 08/07/2020, Validity Certificate was issued in her favour by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee, thereby showing that the Petitioner indeed belongs

to the Other Backward Class. A copy of the Validity Certificate was placed on

record with the Writ Petition and it was prayed that the impugned order be set

aside. On 16/07/2020, this Court issued notice in the Writ Petition and

directed that further steps may not be taken for filling the vacancy created by

the impugned order passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 08/09/2020,

this Court took note of the fact that the petitioner placed reliance on an order

dated 23/03/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, wherein it was directed that period of limitation

prescribed under general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not,

stood extended w.e.f. 15/03/2020 until further orders, in view of the challenge

faced by the Country on account of the COVID-19 virus. This Court also

found that, to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it

would be necessary that an additional affidavit is placed on record to show as

to what steps the petitioner had taken in respect of the pending proceeding

before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in order to examine whether the

contentions raised on her behalf were justified. The petitioner filed an

Kolhe PAGE 5 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

additional affidavit with documents to show the manner in which the

proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee had taken place till issuance

of Cast Validity Certificate on 08/07/2020.

(10) The respondent Municipal Corporation filed its written

submission opposing the Writ Petition, primarily on the basis that the

requirement of Section 5B of the aforesaid Act, is mandatory, which has been

so held by this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On this basis, it

was contended that the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.

(11) Mr.A.A.Dhawas, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the admitted facts of the present case demonstrated that the

unprecedented situation created by the COVID-19 virus and the consequent

lock-down, was solely responsible for the petitioner being unable to submit

Caste Validity Certificate within twelve months of being elected as a Member

of the respondent Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that such a crisis

was faced by humanity after about a century and that this factor was required

to be taken into consideration before applying the said provision, which had

the deeming effect of terminating election of the petitioner with retrospective

effect and disqualifying her from being Member of the respondent Municipal

Corporation. By inviting attention to the additional affidavit placed on record

Kolhe PAGE 6 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

and the documents filed therewith, the learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently submitted that the chronological events that occurred during the

progress of the proceedings pertaining to application for grant of Validity

Certificate submitted by the petitioner before Caste Scrutiny Committee,

demonstrated that the petitioner had been diligently pursuing the matter and

if the COVID-19 crisis had not intervened the proceedings before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee would have been completed and the petitioner would

certainly have been able to satisfy the requirement of Section 5B of the

aforesaid Act.

(12) It was further submitted that failure to submit the Caste

Validity Certificate within the aforesaid period of twelve months could not be

attributed to the petitioner and that therefore, the impugned order deserved to

be set aside. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

initiated Suo Motu proceeding in the form of Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of

2020, in view of the COVID-19 crisis and by order dated 23/03/2020, it was

specifically directed that in view of the said crisis and to obviate difficulties

faced by the litigants, the period of limitation prescribed under general law or

Special Laws whether condonable or not stood extended w.e.f. 15/03/2020

until further orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the

Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

subsequent orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the proceedings

to contend that the relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

context of COVID-19 crisis not only applied to limitation period specified in

statutes, but also to cases where the time to perform of a particular act expired

during the period of lock-down. On this basis it was submitted that the

impugned order dated 23/06/2020, could not have been passed by the

respondent Corporation and that it deserved to be set aside.

(13) On the other hand, Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, learned counsel for

the respondent Corporation submitted that the requirement of Section 5B of

the aforesaid Act is mandatory. This was so held pertaining to a pari materia

provision by Full Bench of this Court and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

had also specifically held the said provision to be mandatory in nature. In this

context, it was submitted that this Court had also held that individual hardship

could not be a ground for permitting non-compliance with the aforesaid

provision and that once it was found that the elected Member of the

Municipal Corporation from reserved seat had failed to produce Validity

Certificate within a period of twelve months, the election stood deemed to be

terminated with retrospective effect. On this basis, it was submitted that there

was no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. As

Kolhe PAGE 8 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

regards the Suo Motu orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

context of the COVID-19 crisis, it was submitted that the said orders applied

to litigants who sought to file suits, petitions, applications, appeals and other

such proceedings wherein periods of limitation were prescribed under general

law of limitation or under Special Laws. It was submitted that the said orders

were not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner was

mandatorily required to satisfy the statutory requirement.

(14) The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on

judgment of this Court in the case of Shankar s/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) vs.

State of Maharashtra and others1 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Shankar s/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) vs. State of Maharashtra and

others2

(15) Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and

having perused the material on record, as also the relevant provisions of law, it

needs to be examined whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances created

by the COVID-19 crisis and consequent imposition of countrywide lock-

down, the petitioner could claim that her election could not be held to be

terminated retrospectively under Section 5B of the said Act.

1       2017(2) Mh.L.J. 368
2       (2019) 3 SCC 220

Kolhe                                                                              PAGE 9    OF 22





                                                                     Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(16)                        There is no dispute about the fact that the application for

grant of Caste Validity Certificate filed by the petitioner before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee was pending for consideration when she filled her

nomination form and stood elected from a reserved seat as Member of the

respondent Corporation on 24/06/2019. Section 5B of the said Act provides

for the statutory requirement to be satisfied by such a person who is elected as

Member of the Municipal Corporation during pendency of application for

grant of Validity Certificate before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The

provision reads as follows :-

"5B. Person contesting election for reserved seat to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate. - Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may be, Backward class of citizens, shall be required to submit, alongwith the nomination paper, Caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000]

[ Provided that, for the General or bye-elections for which the last date of filing of nomination falls during the period commencing on the date of commencement of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, (Mah. XXI of 2018) the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (Amendment) Act, 2018 and

Kolhe PAGE 10 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

ending on the 30th June 2019, in accordance with the election programme declared by the State Election Commission, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for the verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing the nomination papers but who has not received the validity certificate on the date of filing of the nomination papers shall submit, alongwith the nomination papers,-

(i) a true copy of the application preferred by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the validity certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee ; and

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of [twelve months] from the date of his election, the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee : ]

[ Provided further that, if the person fails to produce the validity certificate within a period of [twelve months] from the date of his election, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor. ]

[ "Provided also that, in respect of the undertaking filed by any person under clause (ii) of the first proviso, before the date of commencement of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations and the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships (Third Amendment) Act, 2018, the period of "six months" specified in such undertaking shall be deemed to have been substituted as "twelve months". ]"

(17) The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that, as

per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

Kolhe PAGE 11 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

requirement under the above quoted provision of law, has been held to be

mandatory. This is evident from the judgments rendered by a Single Judge of

this Court in the case of Shankar s/o Raghunath Devare vs. State of

Maharashtra and others (supra), as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in

the case of Shankar s/o Raghunath Devare vs. State of Maharashtra and others

(supra) in the context of pari materia provision in another statute, as well as

the specific requirement of the above quoted provision i.e. Section 5B of the

aforesaid Act. As per the said mandatory provision, the petitioner was

required to submit Caste Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee within twelve months from the date of her election. There is no

dispute about the fact that the petitioner could not submit such Caste Validity

Certificate. This was recorded in the impugned order dated 23/06/2020,

passed by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation, holding that

since the petitioner had failed to comply with the aforesaid mandatory

requirement of law, her election stood terminated with retrospective effect and

she stood disqualified as Member of the Municipal Corporation.

(18) On the face of it, by operation of the Section 5B of the

aforesaid Act, the impugned order passed by the respondent appears to be in

terms of the position of law. But, the unprecedented situation created by the

Kolhe PAGE 12 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

COVID-19 crisis and the consequent countrywide lock-down, is a factor

which needs to be taken into consideration, while examining the contentions

raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute raised by the respondent

Corporation about the fact that the countrywide lock-down was imposed w.e.f

22/03/2020, in view of the COVID-19 crisis. As a consequence, filing of

proceedings and hearing of pending proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny

Committee had become impossible.

(19) A perusal of the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner

along with the documents filed therewith shows that the petitioner had been

pursuing the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for grant of Caste

Validity Certificate. The petitioner obviously had no control over the said

proceeding, the Scrutiny Committee being a quasi judicial authority. The

documents provided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner show

that during the proceedings for examining the Caste claim of the petitioner, on

25/06/2019, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had issued a letter to the office of

respondent for supplying list of elected candidates as Members of the

Corporation and that this information was provided on 08/07/2019 by the

Deputy Commissioner of the respondent Corporation. On 20/07/2019 the

petitioner was called upon to furnish the documents and proof. Such

Kolhe PAGE 13 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

documents were supplied and the petitioner complied with the said

requirements on 07/10/2019. On 08/11/2019, the Caste Scrutiny Committee

issued a letter to the Village Development Officer for original tax register and

also issued summons to Head Master of the Primary School for producing the

registers, to verify the claims made by the petitioner.

(20) On 18/12/2019, the Caste Scrutiny Committee called

upon the petitioner to furnish additional proof and on 23/12/2019 the Village

Development Officer to produce the original record of tax demand register.

On 24/12/2019, the claim of the petitioner was forwarded for domestic

inquiry to the vigilance cell. On 23/01/2020, the vigilance cell forwarded

vigilance report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. On 30/01/2020, the Caste

Scrutiny Committee issued a letter to the petitioner to furnish additional

evidence, which the petitioner submitted on 12/02/2020. On 16/03/2020,

the petitioner also submitted his original birth certificate.

(21) At this stage on 22/03/2020, lock-down was imposed due

to which the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not function effectively. The

Committee could not hold sittings and parties were not allowed to enter the

office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as a consequence of which, it was only

on 22/05/2020 that the Caste claim of the petitioner was taken up for

Kolhe PAGE 14 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

consideration. On 11/06/2020, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a letter

to the Gram Panchayat to produce all original records pertaining to the

petitioner. On 03/07/2020, the matter was again sent for vigilance report by

the Caste Scrutiny Committee and such report was received on 06/07/2020.

Eventually, on 08/07/2020, the Caste claim of the petitioner stood decided,

when the Caste Scrutiny Committee found that the claim of the petitioner was

justified and accordingly, Caste Validity Certificate dated 08/07/2020, was

issued to her.

(22) This Court has referred to the proceedings before the

Caste Scrutiny Committee in detail, because the chronological events do

indicate that the time consumed in the said proceedings was attributable to the

procedure adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and that no conclusion

could be drawn that the petitioner had deliberately delayed such proceedings.

Imposition of lock-down due to COVID-19 crisis certainly delayed the

proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, due to which the Caste

Validity Certificate could be eventually issued only on 08/07/2020. This was

beyond the period of twelve months from the date of election specified in

Section 5B of the said Act. Yet, it needs to be examined whether the learned

counsel for the respondent Corporation is justified in contending that

Kolhe PAGE 15 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

individual hardship of the petitioner could not be a ground to escape the

consequences of failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement of the said

provision.

(23) The circumstances created by the COVID-19 crisis

adversely affected the entire globe and human kind at large, thereby showing

that it could not be said that the petitioner was faced with individual hardship.

The scale of the crisis is unprecedented, due to which the highest Court of the

land was required to issue hitherto unknown directions. Due to the challenge

faced by the entire country on account of COVID-19 crisis, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and initiated proceedings in Suo

Motu Writ Petition(Civil) No.3 of 2020. In the order dated 23/03/2020,

passed in the said proceeding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the

situation and the resultant difficulties faced by the litigants across the country.

To obviate such difficulties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order

directed as follows :-

" This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced byl itigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).

Kolhe                                                                    PAGE 16     OF 22





                                                                   Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




                To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that

lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.

We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks."

(24) It is contended on behalf of the respondent Corporation

that the said directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were limited to

relief for litigants who intended to file suits/petitions/applications/appeals and

other such proceedings for which periods of limitation are prescribed under

the general law of limitation or Special Laws. It was contended that the said

direction and relief granted to litigants by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by

exercising power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution

of India was not meant for persons like the petitioner herein. It was submitted

that the mandatory requirement of Section 5B of the aforesaid Act, could not

be diluted by such directions.

Kolhe                                                                       PAGE 17     OF 22





                                                                    Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(25)                       It is relevant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above quoted order used the expression "all other proceedings". Considering

the backdrop, in which the said order was passed, it can be said that proviso to

Section 5B of the aforesaid Act provides a specific limitation of time period for

submitting Caste Validity Certificate, which is a period of twelve months. As

per the above quoted order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the period of

limitation prescribed by Special Laws, both Central and State laws, stood

extended w.e.f. 15/03/2020 till further orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is significant that in a subsequent order dated 10/07/2020 in the very same

suo motu proceeding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that parties had

prayed for extension of time where the time to perform a particular act was to

expire during the lock-down. In the backdrop of such prayer, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996, as also, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which

fix specific time periods for doing certain acts and then granted relief of

extension of time limits.

(26) In the backdrop of the unprecedented crisis created by the

lock-down due to the COVID-19 virus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised

power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India to

Kolhe PAGE 18 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

grant such relief of extension of time. The said directions given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply to various situations and in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the present case, to the case of the petitioner also.

(27) This aspect was not taken into consideration by the

respondent Corporation at all while passing the impugned order dated

23/06/2020. The Caste Validity Certificate was admittedly issued on

08/07/2020 in favour of the petitioner and therefore, if the directions given

by the Hon'ble supreme Court from time to time for extension of time to

perform certain acts are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes

evident that the respondent Corporation could not have held immediately

upon expiry of the period of twelve months that the election of the petitioner

stood terminated with retrospective effect and that she stood disqualified as

Member of the respondent Corporation.

(28) There is another angle from which the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case can be viewed. The principle of impotentia

excusat legem i.e. when there is a disability that makes it impossible to obey

the law, the alleged disobedience of law is excused, is recognized in

jurisprudence. This principle has been referred to in a recent judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash

Kolhe PAGE 19 OF 22

Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

Kushanrao Gorantyal3, wherein it has been held that the mandatory

requirement of law is to be excused when it is demonstrated that despite all

efforts made by the party required to satisfy the mandatory requirement, due

to no fault of such person, the requirement could not be satisfied. In the said

case, the party had made all efforts for grant of requisite certificate under the

provisions of the Evidence Act, but the concerned authority, which was

supposed to issue the certificate failed to issue the certificate to the party.

(29) In the present case, it can not be said that the petitioner

did not make efforts for issuance of Caste Validity Certificate before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, as is evident from the details of the proceeding provided

by the office of the Committee. Despite efforts made by the petitioner, the

proceedings initiated before the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not be

terminated before the expiry of the mandatory period of twelve months under

proviso to Section 5B of the said Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee could

not hold meetings and it could not proceed with the application of the

petitioner due to imposition of lock-down on 22/03/2020. But for the

intervening circumstance of COVID-19 crisis and consequent lock-down, the

Caste Scrutiny Committee would have been able to complete the proceeding

regarding the Caste Validity Certificate of the petitioner.

3       (2020) 7 SCC 1

Kolhe                                                                            PAGE 20     OF 22





                                                                     Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt




(30)                       The Caste Scrutiny Committee was also not to blame for

such a predicament because imposition of lock-down resulted in a situation

where the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not hold meetings and even the

parties before the Committee were not permitted to physically enter the office

of the Committee. It can be said that the performance of the act by the

petitioner, mandatorily required under the provisions of the aforesaid Act,

could not be completed due to factors beyond the control of the petitioner and

necessarily due to a factor like the act of God. In the present case it could be

said to be the act of the dreaded virus. The maxim impotentia excusat legem

is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad

impossibilia i.e. the law does not demand the impossible.

(31) Both these maxims have been referred to and relied upon

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Arjun Paditrao

Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gurantyal and others (supra), while holding

in favour of the respondent in the context of excusing the said respondents

from satisfying the mandatory requirement of the relevant provision of the

Evidence Act.

(32)                       If the said position of law is applied to the peculiar facts



Kolhe                                                                         PAGE 21     OF 22





                                                                  Judgment W. P. 1904.2020.odt

of the present case created by the lock-down imposed due to the COVID-19

crisis, it can be said that the aforesaid legal maxims apply and that there is

substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(33) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 23/06/2020 is set aside. It is held that the petitioner

cannot be said to have incurred disqualification under Section 5B of the

aforesaid Act, only because she could not submit the Caste Validity Certificate

within the stipulated period of twelve months. It is held that she is entitled to

protection of the directions issued from time to time by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, in the backdrop of the

COVID-19 crisis.

(34)                       Rule made absolute in above terms.



                                                        [ MANISH PITALE J. ]




Kolhe                                                                      PAGE 22     OF 22