Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2058 - SC - Indian LawsTime limitation for submission of caste validity certificate by elected councilor - mandatory in nature or not? - failure on the part of person elected as Councilor to produce the caste validity certificate within the period of six months from the date on which he was declared elected - validation of caste claim of elected Councilor by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period would automatically result into termination of such Councilor with retrospective operation - HELD THAT:- Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (Act No. 59 of 1949) require a member of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes to enclose with the nomination for election his/her Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and also the Validity Certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee - A proviso to the aforesaid main provision of the statute was brought in subsequently which permitted a candidate to file his/her nomination even in the absence of the validity certificate provided he/she encloses with the nomination a true copy of the application filed by him/her before the Scrutiny Committee and an undertaking that he/she shall submit, within a period of six months from the date of his/her election, the validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee. The High Court very rightly came to the aforesaid conclusion along with the further finding that equities in individual case(s) would not be a good ground to hold the provision to be directory. In fact, the High Court has supported its decision by weighty reasons to hold that reading the provisions to be directory would virtually amount to rendering the same to be negatory - Compounded is the fact that the proviso was deleted in the year 2008 and reintroduced in the year 2012. The same would go to show that sans the proviso the main provision would debar a candidate who does not possess a validity certificate from contesting the election as a reserved category candidate. If that is so the proviso has to be strictly construed and the deeming provision contained in the second proviso together with the plain language used can lead to only one conclusion, namely, that the legislative intent was to make the provision of the statute mandatory irrespective of individual hardships. The High Court of Bombay was perfectly justified in coming to the impugned conclusion on the basis of the reasoning that was adopted, which is affirmed - SLP dismissed.
|