RADHABAI CHARANSINGH CHAWARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. THE petitioner, who has been elected as Municipal Councilor of Municipal Council, Wardha, takes exception to the order passed by respondent No.3 Collector disqualifying her from membership of Municipal Council, Wardha, because her caste certificate has been cancelled by respondent No.2 the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was born on 10-6-1963 in Adilabad District (Andhra Pradesh), where her father was serving in the Railways. Her father belonged to Mehtar community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in Andhra Pradesh. On 9-2-1981, she was married to Charansingh Chaware, resident of Wardha, who also belongs to Mehtar community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in State of Maharashtra. Since her marriage, she has been residing with her husband at Wardha in State of Maharashtra, that is for about 25 years. She, therefore, claims to be ordinary resident of State of Maharashtra. She had obtained a certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Wardha, to the effect that she belonged to Scheduled Caste. She contested election to the Municipal Council, Wardha, and was elected from the ward reserved for Scheduled Caste women in December 1991 and 1996. Again, while contesting election for the third time, she obtained requisite caste certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8-7-2004 and again successfully contested municipal election and was declared elected on 27-11-2006.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that cancellation of a certificate due to failure to submit the documentary evidence about residence in State of Maharashtra prior to 1950, was illegal and contrary to law. She submitted that she was ordinary resident of State of Maharashtra since her marriage in 1981 for over 25 years and, therefore, complied with the requirement under Section 20 of the Representation of People Act. She submitted that the Government Resolutions, upon which the Committee placed reliance, pertained to migration for the purpose of employment, education, etc., and do not apply to migration on account of marriage and, therefore, the Committee was not justified in applying observations from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Action Committee v. Union of India, reported in 1994(5) SCC 244. She submitted that she belongs to Mehtar caste, which is notified in Scheduled Caste both in Andhra Pradesh and State of Maharashtra and the disadvantages and sufferings that her community had to undergo in Andhra Pradesh were the same as in State of Maharashtra and, therefore, she could not be denied such benefit. Therefore, the Committee was not justified in denying validity of her caste certificate merely on the ground that she was born in Andhra Pradesh and stayed there till her marriage. She further assailed the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play, since she was not given adequate opportunity to place her case before the Committee.