Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Alleging Delayed Submission Of Caste Certificate By Sarpanch, Says He Can't Be Blamed For Situation Created By COVID

Justice S. M. Modak observed in his order that "the factors prevailing due to COVID pandemic were beyond the control of Respondent No.2 (elected Sarpanch). In normal circumstances, the Respondent No.2 could have approached this Court when validity is not granted within 12 months. However, he cannot be blamed for not approaching in view of COVID pandemic."

The court relied on Kalmati Ramkrupal Yadav v. Chandrapur City Municipal Corporation in which the candidate was given extension of time as the COVID factors were completely out of her control.

In the present case, the respondent Iqbal Naikwadi was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bachani, Kolhapur District on March 25, 2019 from a seat reserved for backward class. He could not produce the cast validity certificate within 12 months as per section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. He had applied for caste validity on March 7, 2019 and he was granted the same on October 29, 2020.

The Chairman of the Caste Validity Committee, Mumbai Suburban District had an additional charge for Kolhapur. He could not travel to Kolhapur due to COVID restrictions thereby delaying the grant of caste validity certificate. The District Collector did not accept the objection taken by the petitioner for disqualifying the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The court considered Supreme Court guidelines related to COVID and various Supreme Court as well as Bombay High Court judgments to decide the present case.

It referred to Anant Ulahalkar v. Chief Election Commissioner in which a Full Bench held that the period for submitting caste validity certificate is mandatory and non-production amounts to automatic disqualification. The District Collector did not consider this and rejected petitioner's objection despite delayed production of validity certificate by the elected Sarpanch.

Advocate Chetan Patil for the elected sarpanch submitted that Anant Ulahalkar is inapplicable as a different issue is involved in the present case. He said that the delay was due to COVID restrictions, and sought for relief in accordance with the suo moto directions given by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

Advocate Dhrupad Patil for the petitioner relied on Mandakani Kachru Kokane v. State of Maharashtra in which the petitioner had applied for caste validity earlier to winning the election and her validity was refused after one year. However, the high court refused to grant her relief.

However, the court said that in Mandakini Kachru, the issue of COVID restrictions was only an incidental issue.

The court noted that in Kalmati Yadav's case and in Farida Noormahamad Mujawar v. State of Maharashtra, the benefit of COVID guidelines was given. The issue in both cases was about adhering to mandatory period of producing caste validity certificate by returned candidate.

In Kalmati Yadav, the court had observed that there was no deliberate delay on account of the petitioner due to COVID and the factor of COVID was completely out of control of the petitioner similar to force majeure or act of God.

Therefore, the court observed that Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the Bombay High Court have granted benefit in situations similar to that involved in the present petition.

The bench said that the respondent under normal circumstances could have approached the court when validity was not granted in time. However, he cannot be blamed considering the COVID pandemic. Therefore, the court did not accept the contentions raised by the petitioner's lawyer and dismissed the petition on merits.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 753 of 2021

Case title – Raviraj Rajendra Patil v. Gram Panchayat Bachni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 471  

Click Here To Read/Download Order