# Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 90
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-02-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1776 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sudhir-vilas-kalel-ors-v-bapu-rajaram-kalel-ors-37517
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Whether Appellant No.1 was entitled to the protection of ss.3 and
4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; whether the
proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the No Confidence Motion
against Appellant No.2 as not carried for want of the requisite
votes is tenable.
Headnotes
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 - ss.3, 4 -
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - ss.35, 10(1A),
30(1A) - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 -
ss.3, 4 of the 2023 Act - Protection under - When not available
- No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2-Sarpanch
of the Gram Panchayat - Validity - Appellant No.1 if was a
member of the Panchayat entitled to vote and covered by the
protective umbrella u/ss.3 and 4:
Held: Temporary Extension Act was enacted since the Scrutiny
Committees were overburdened with the work of verification of
Caste Certificates and the elected members were facing difficulties
in obtaining the Validity Certificates within the prescribed time -
It aimed to protect the applicants whose applications were still
pending before the Scrutiny Committee - The idea was that such
elected candidates ought not to be deprived merely because of
166
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
non-issuance of Validity Certificates when the applications are
still pending - Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as
a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within
12 months from the date of his election - The protective umbrella
of s.3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available
to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by s.3(2)(b), as there was no
valid application pending on the date of the commencement of
the said Act - Appellant No.1 ceased to be a member because of
the automatic disqualification - The contention that there was no
rejection and that it was only a "filing" or "lodgment" of the application
by the Scrutiny Committee, not accepted - The rejection in s.3(2)(b)
will also include those cases where applications came to be rejected
on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants
themselves - Proceedings of the Tahsildar dtd.19.06.2023 rejecting
the No Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement
of three-fourth of the members "entitled to sit and vote", was not
fulfilled, cannot be sustained and was rightly set aside by the High
Court - High Court also rightly set aside the rejection of the No
Confidence Motion holding that the No Confidence Motion against
Appellant No. 2-Sarpanch, was duly carried - Order of the High
Court affirmed. [Paras 31, 39, 40, 42-44]
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 - s.3(1)(b),
(2)(b):
Held: s.3 covers the cases of persons who had applied to the
Scrutiny Committee for verification of their Caste Certificate before
the date of filing of the nomination papers and who were elected
on the reserved seat; and whose applications were pending before
the Scrutiny Committee on the date of commencement of the Act-
It is mandated that they can produce the certificate within twelve
months from the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension
Act, 2023 i.e. till 09.07.2024 - Under s.3(1), the further period of
twelve months from 10.07.2023 was for those whose applications
were validly filed and pending and where their applications have
been submitted before the date of nomination - Sub-section (2)
(b) clearly states that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 64,636. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 165 : 2024 INSC 90
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors.
v.
Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1776 of 2024)
07 February 2024
[Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether Appellant No.1 was entitled to the protection of ss.3 and
4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; whether the
proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the No Confidence Motion
against Appellant No.2 as not carried for want of the requisite
votes is tenable.
Headnotes
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 - ss.3, 4 -
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - ss.35, 10(1A),
30(1A) - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 -
ss.3, 4 of the 2023 Act - Protection under - When not available
- No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2-Sarpanch
of the Gram Panchayat - Validity - Appellant No.1 if was a
member of the Panchayat entitled to vote and covered by the
protective umbrella u/ss.3 and 4:
Held: Temporary Extension Act was enacted since the Scrutiny
Committees were overburdened with the work of verification of
Caste Certificates and the elected members were facing difficulties
in obtaining the Validity Certificates within the prescribed time -
It aimed to protect the applicants whose applications were still
pending before the Scrutiny Committee - The idea was that such
elected candidates ought not to be deprived merely because of
166
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
non-issuance of Validity Certificates when the applications are
still pending - Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as
a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within
12 months from the date of his election - The protective umbrella
of s.3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available
to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by s.3(2)(b), as there was no
valid application pending on the date of the commencement of
the said Act - Appellant No.1 ceased to be a member because of
the automatic disqualification - The contention that there was no
rejection and that it was only a "filing" or "lodgment" of the application
by the Scrutiny Committee, not accepted - The rejection in s.3(2)(b)
will also include those cases where applications came to be rejected
on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants
themselves - Proceedings of the Tahsildar dtd.19.06.2023 rejecting
the No Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement
of three-fourth of the members "entitled to sit and vote", was not
fulfilled, cannot be sustained and was rightly set aside by the High
Court - High Court also rightly set aside the rejection of the No
Confidence Motion holding that the No Confidence Motion against
Appellant No. 2-Sarpanch, was duly carried - Order of the High
Court affirmed. [Paras 31, 39, 40, 42-44]
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 - s.3(1)(b),
(2)(b):
Held: s.3 covers the cases of persons who had applied to the
Scrutiny Committee for verification of their Caste Certificate before
the date of filing of the nomination papers and who were elected
on the reserved seat; and whose applications were pending before
the Scrutiny Committee on the date of commencement of the Act-
It is mandated that they can produce the certificate within twelve
months from the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension
Act, 2023 i.e. till 09.07.2024 - Under s.3(1), the further period of
twelve months from 10.07.2023 was for those whose applications
were validly filed and pending and where their applications have
been submitted before the date of nomination - Sub-section (2)
(b) clearly states that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
apply where the member whose application of Validity Certificate
had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. [Paras 31, 38]
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
167
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
Case Law Cited
Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Others. (2019) 3 SCC 220 - referred to.
Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
& Ors. 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431; Mandakani Kachru Kokane
alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra
& Ors. 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 221 - referred to.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959; Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000; Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012; Maharashtra Municipal Councils,
Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.
List of Keywords
Caste Certificate; Verification of Caste Certificates; Validity
Certificate; Scrutiny Committees; No Confidence Motion; Automatic
disqualification; Sarpanch.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1776 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.7924 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Gaurav Agrawal, Manav, Mr./Ms. Suman Sharma, Muesh Kumar
Tripathy, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Anand Dilip Landge, Siddheshwar Kalel,
Vivek Salunkhe, Aniruddha Joshi, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya
Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
168
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.
Leave Granted.
2.
The 'war' in this case is over the validity of a No Confidence Motion
against Appellant No. 2 - Sushila Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch
(Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. However, there is a
'battle' within, which entirely determines the result of the war. It is
on the validity of the membership of Appellant No. 1 - Sudhir Vilas
Kalel in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be carried
by not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who
are entitled, to 'sit' and 'vote'. If the Appellant No. 1 was entitled to
'Sit' as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion
against Appellant No.2 cannot 'Stand', to deploy a Denning-esque
phrase. The High Court has found against the appellants. Aggrieved,
they are before us in appeal.
3.
Was the Appellant No.1, in law, a member of the Panchayat,
entitling him to vote, is the question that arises for consideration in
this case. Is the Appellant No. 1 covered by the protective umbrella
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension
of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to
Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023
[hereinafter referred to as the "Temporary Extension Act, 2023"]?
If the answer is in the affirmative, the election of the Appellant No.
1 as a reserved Member in the election of the Gram Panchayat
of Village Jambulani would stand validated. Consequently, the No
Confidence Motion expressing No Confidence in the Appellant No.
2 - Sushila Sitaram Kalel (the Sarpanch) would also stand nullified.
If Appellant No. 1 is held not to be entitled to the benefit of Section 3
of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, then he would be deemed to
have vacated his seat and consequently, the No Confidence Motion
would stand carried. For a fuller understanding, the background facts
and the statutory regime need to be set out in some detail.
Brief facts and the Legislative Regime:
4.
On 30.12.2020, the Appellant No. 1 filed his nomination papers
for contesting elections as a Member of the Panchayat of Village
Jambulani, District Satara on a seat reserved for the OBC category.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
169
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
As early as on 03.02.2013 itself, the Appellant No. 1 was issued a
Caste Certificate by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Satara certifying
that he belongs to 'Lonari' Caste which is an Other Backward Class.
He had on the same day of filing his nomination papers i.e. on
30.12.2020 applied for a Validity Certificate. This Validity Certificate is
an essential requirement under 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
[hereinafter referred to as the "Caste Certificate Act, 2000"]. There
are elaborate rules framed under this Act which will be discussed
later in the judgment.
5.
Under Section 3 of this Act, any person belonging to Other Backward
Class for the purpose of contesting for any elective post in any local
authority, should apply in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed, to the Competent Authority for the issuance of a Caste
Certificate. Under Section 4 of this Act, the Competent Authority is
entitled to issue a Caste Certificate. This is a Certificate which the
Appellant No. 1 possessed on 03.02.2013. However, this alone is
not conclusive. Under Section 4(2), the Caste Certificate issued by
the Competent Authority would be valid subject to the verification
and grant of Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Under
Section 6 of this Act, the Government is authorized to constitute a
Scrutiny Committee and prescribe the area of its jurisdiction. Under
Section 6(2) of this Act, after obtaining the Caste Certificate from the
Competent Authority, any person, desirous of availing of the benefits
or concessions provided to the said caste, is authorized to make an
application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification
of such Caste Certificate and issue of a Validity Certificate. Under
Section 6(4) of this Act, the Scrutiny Committee was to follow such
procedure for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the
time limit for verification and grant of Validity Certificate as prescribed.
6.
The Rules called the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification
of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the "2012
Rules"] have been framed. Rule 11 prescribes the constitution of
the Scrutiny Committee. Rule 14 sets out that any person desirous
170
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of availing of the benefits and concessions provided to the reserved
category shall submit an application in the prescribed form with an
affidavit to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his
caste claim and issuance of Caste Validity Certificate well in time.
Rule 15 mandates that the application for verification of Caste
Certificate under Rule 14 shall be filed or submitted well in time in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed in Rule 17.
Further Rule 16 provides for the information to be supplied by the
applicant. It states that to enable the Scrutiny Committee to decide the
application expeditiously, the documents/information set out therein,
was to be produced. Apart from setting out certain documents, subclause (f) provides for the furnishing of other relevant evidence, if
any, subject to admissibility. Explanation 2 of Rule 16 speaks of the
applicant undertaking the production of original documents as and
when required by the Scrutiny Committee.
7.
Rule 17, which prescribes the procedure of Scrutiny Committee, is
significant for this case. Sub-Rules 1 to Sub- Rules 3 of Rule 17 are
extracted herein below:
"17 (1) On receipt of application, the Scrutiny Committee
shall ensure that the application and the information
supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to carry
out scrutiny of the application.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
claimant or applicant or complainant shall be personally
responsible for removal of objections raised by Scrutiny
Committee, if any, within two weeks or within such
extended period, which shall not be more than six weeks,
failing which the claim or application or complaint shall be
disposed of, by appreciating available records and such
decision may be communicated to the applicant by the
Scrutiny Committee.
(3) The incomplete application may be rejected by recording
reasons."
8.
As is clear from the above, Rule 17 (2) states that applicant was
personally responsible for removal of objections raised by the
Scrutiny Committee within the time prescribed. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule
17 categorically states that incomplete application may be rejected
by recording reasons.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
171
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
9.
For the purpose of adjudicating this case, alongside the above
statutes, certain provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the "Panchayats Act"] which
come into play, need to be set out and analyzed. Section 10-1A,
reads as follows:
"10-1A. Person contesting election for reserved seat
to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate.
- Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat
reserved for 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 by-elections for which
the last date of filing of nomination falls on or before the
31st December 20231, in accordance with the election
programme declared by the State Election Commission,
a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing
of the nomination papers but who has not received the
Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination
papers shall submit, along with 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 on which he is declared
elected, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny
Committee:
1
(This date was originally 28.02.2021, at the time of the election in question)
172
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Provided further that, if such person fails to produce the
Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months from
the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall
be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and
he shall be disqualified for being a member.''
A similar provision in the form of Section 30(1A) exists for persons
contesting for the reserved office of Sarpanch.
10. In view of the above provision, every person desirous of contesting
election to a membership in the reserved category, shall submit
alongwith the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the
Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
The proviso sets out that for elections for which the last date of filing
of nomination fell on or before the date prescribed in the proviso, a
person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification
of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination
papers but who has not yet received the Validity Certificate shall
submit, along with the nomination papers, an undertaking that he
shall submit the same, within a period of twelve months from the date
on which he is declared elected. The further proviso sets out that if
such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period
of twelve months from the date on which he is declared elected, his
election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
and the person was to be disqualified for being a member.
11. In pari materia provision exists in the Maharashtra Municipal Councils,
Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 in the form
of Section 9A therein.
12. A raging legal debate arose in Maharashtra about the nature of these
provisions - are they mandatory or are they directory? The issue
was settled by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
& Ors. [2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431]. This judgment of the Full Bench was
affirmed by this Court in the case of Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre
(Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others.[ (2019) 3 SCC 220].
13. There were earlier divergent views in the High Court. The parties
contending that the provisions were "directory", primarily argued that
the time taken for disposal by the Scrutiny Committee was not in
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
173
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
their control. According to them, as long as the Validity Certificate
was produced within a reasonable time, the strict time limit provided
in the statute should be construed as directory and that elections
should not be invalidated for the said reason. On the other hand,
the proponents of the theory that the provision was mandatory
contended that the statute is couched in mandatory terms, with the
use of the word 'shall' and that consequences had been provided
for non-compliance. The Full Bench, after considering the statutory
provision and the decided cases, in para 45 and 46 of the judgment
first held the following:
"45. In case of Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), the Full Bench
of this Court, in the context of inter play between similar
Municipal Legislations and the Caste Act, 2000, has held
that the legislature expects a person to claim benefit of
contesting to a reserved post only after obtaining Validity
Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, though it also
permits a person to claim such benefit on the basis of
a tentative caste certificate issued by the Competent
Authority, if such a person is willing to take the risk. Such
reasoning is reflected in paragraphs 12A, 12B and 12C.
Since paragraph 12B is most relevant, it is transcribed
below for reference of convenience:-
"12B. Thus the scheme is that a person who obtains a caste
certificate has to himself apply to the Scrutiny Committee
for scrutiny of his caste certificate, so that he can secure
a valid certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, and it is
only after the Scrutiny Committee issuing a valid certificate
that the caste certificate issued in favour of the person by
the Competent Authority becomes final. In our opinion, the
scheme of subsection (2) of section 6 is that any candidate
who desires to avail of any benefit available to backward
class has to get a caste certificate as also the validity
certificate before he makes a claim for the benefits. But if
a candidate chooses to make claim to the benefits on the
basis of a tentative certificate namely a certificate issued
by the Competent Authority, he takes the risk of his losing
the benefits that he has claimed and obtained and also
being visited with penal consequences on the refusal of
the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste claim. The Act
174
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
contemplates conscious decision being made by a person
at the time of claiming benefits. The Legislature expects
a person to claim the benefits only after obtaining the
validity certificate, but the Legislature also permits a
person to claim the benefits on the basis of a tentative
certificate issued by the Competent Authority, if he
is willing to take the risk mentioned above. In our
opinion, therefore, the validity certificate is one of the
essential ingredient of the candidate being qualified
to contest for the reserved seat...."
(emphasis supplied)
46. According to Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), therefore, a
person who seeks to contest election to reserved posts
without compliance with the general rule of producing
Validity Certificate along with nomination papers, 'takes a
risk'. The first proviso to section 9-A, in such a case, makes
this position quite clear by requiring such person to furnish
a statutory undertaking to produce Validity Certificate within
six months from the date of election. The second proviso,
in terms, provides for consequence in case of breach. Such
person, having taken the risk, cannot, in the absence of
any ambiguity in the provision, be permitted to wriggle out
from the consequences of breach so clearly and statutorily
provided in the provision itself. Otherwise, such person,
will avail of a conditional concession, without, fulfilling the
condition subject to which such concession came to be
granted in the first place by the provision."
The Legislature expects a person claiming the benefit of contesting
in a reserved post to be in possession of both the Caste Certificate
and the Validity Certificate at the time of filing the nomination. The
allowance to contest by submitting the Caste Certificate alone was
with the undertaking that he would produce the Validity Certificate
within the stipulated time, and this was the risk that the candidate
was taking. It was a 'risk' because a Validity Certificate which he
ought to have ordinarily possessed on the date of nomination being
unavailable, he or she is granted the concession of contesting,
subject to the undertaking. In the event of non-production within
the stipulated time, even an elected candidate would automatically
stand disqualified.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
175
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
14. Thereafter, the Full Bench went on to hold as follows in para 80 and
81, while construing the nature of the time limit for production of the
Validity Certificate, as it then stood.
"80. ...If the legislature, for a limited period of time, taking
into consideration pendency of applications for issuance of
Validity Certificate before the Scrutiny Committee grants
some exemptions or concession to persons who have
applied for issue of Validity Certificate before the date
of filing nomination papers, but who have not received
such Validity Certificate on the date of filing of nomination
papers, subject to such persons producing the Validity
Certificate "within period of six months from the date of
election", there is no reason to treat the stipulation as to
time has (sic.) merely directory and thereby enlarge or
extend the exemption or the concession granted by the
legislature.
81. If, the intention of the legislature was to grant exemption
from the requirement of producing Validity Certificate, until,
the elected candidate's application is disposed of by the
Scrutiny Committee, nothing prevented the legislature from
saying so expressly or at least by necessary implication.
Instead, in this case, and perhaps, for good reason,
the legislature has consciously deemed it appropriate
to insist that the person submits an undertaking that he
shall produce the Validity Certificate within six months
and further, the legislature, in clear, unambiguous and
express terms has provided that upon the failure of such
person to produce the Validity Certificate within six months
from the date of election, his election shall be deemed
to have been retrospectively terminated and he shall be
disqualified for being a Councillor. If, the stipulation as to
time is construed as directory, then, the legislative intent, so
clearly expressed, will be defeated. The significant portions
of the provision will be rendered a mere surplusage. In
essence, this Court would be rewriting the statute on the
basis of its own value judgments or notions of equity and
inequity."
176
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
After holding that the provision is mandatory, the Full Bench held that
failure to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee
within the stipulated time would mean that the election was deemed
to have been terminated retrospectively and the person was to be
disqualified. It also held that retrospective termination of the election
and disqualification were automatic in the following words:-
"98. In the present case also the legislature in enacting
section 9-A has provided for a statutory fiction, which is
evident from the use of expression "his election shall be
deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he
shall be disqualified being a Councillor". The statutory
fiction must be allowed to have its full play. No other
provision or reason has been pointed out to take the view
that consequences prescribed under second proviso to
section 9-A are not automatic or would require any further
adjudication once it is established that the person elected
has failed to produce the Validity Certificate within a
stipulated period of six months from the date of his election.
99. The validation of caste claim of the elected Councillor
by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period
would have no effect upon the statutory consequences
prescribed under the second proviso to section 9-A i.e.
deemed retrospective termination of the election of such
Councillor and his disqualification for being a Councillor.
The subsequent validation or issue of the Validity Certificate
will therefore be irrelevant for the purpose of restoration of
the Councillor's election but, such validation will obviously
entitle him to contest the election to be held on account
of termination of his election and the consequent vacancy
caused thereby.
100. In the result, we hold that the time limit of six months
prescribed in the two provisos to section 9-A of the said
Act, within which an elected person is required to produce
the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee is
mandatory."
Further, in terms of second proviso to section 9-A if a person
fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of six
months from the date on which he is elected, his election
shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
177
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
Such retrospective termination of his election and
disqualification for being a Councillor would be automatic
and validation of his caste claim after the stipulated period
would not result in restoration of his election.
The questions raised, stand answered accordingly."
15. This statutory background is essential to interpret the Temporary
Extension Act, 2023. To consider whether the Appellant No. 1 is
entitled to the protection of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023,
it is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the present case. The
Appellant No. 1 obtained his Caste Certificate on 03.02.2013. Only on
30.12.2020 (the date of his nomination) he submitted an application
for the Validity Certificate to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. At the
time of filing of his nomination, he also filed an undertaking that he
will produce the Caste Validity Certificate within twelve months from
the date of his election. On 18.01.2021, the elections were held and
on 21.01.2021, the results were declared and the Appellant No. 1 was
declared elected. The twelve months period expired on 20.01.2022.
16. On 30.12.2020, when he filed the application online to the Scrutiny
Committee for obtaining the Validity Certificate, a receipt was issued
to him. In the receipt, the following endorsement appears:-
"I have been informed that, within seven days will file
declaration otherwise the matter should be closed."
Thereafter, it is undisputed that on 01-03/04/2021, the District Caste
Certificate Verification Committee, Satara made the following order.
This order also covered the case of the Appellant No. 1 along with
3013 other applicants. The order reads as under:
"As per above read No 1 the intended contestants of the
elections of Local Bodies. Municipal Councils, Municipal
Corporations have submitted their application for their cast
certificates with the office of the Committee. As per the read
No 2 and 3 above the elected candidates in local bodies,
municipal councils and corporations from reserved seats,
have to submit their cast verification certificate within one
year from the election.
As per read No. 4 above notification regarding decision of
the election dtd 23.03.2021 of Collector (Election Branch)
and as per the notification submitted by the elected
178
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
candidates the committee scrutinized that, whether these
applicants are elected in such elections or not? After
scrutiny it found that, these applicant candidates have not
been elected in the elections from the reserve seats. As
such elected candidates have not filed the notification of
elected candidates in time, this office cannot take decision
in this regard. Hence this proposal has been filed as per
the provisions of Rules 17(2)(3) of Maharashtra Rules of
verification of caste certificate SC, ST, OBC, Spl BC 2012."
It is clear from the operative portion of the order that since the elected
candidates have not submitted the notification of being elected, in
time, the office was not able to take any decision in that regard. In
view of that, the proposal was 'filed' as per the provisions of Rule
17 (2)(3) of the 2012 Rules.
17. Before we take up for consideration the interpretation of Sections 3
and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, one judgment of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Mandakani Kachru
Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra
& Ors. [2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 221] needs to be referred to. In the said
judgment, in para 48, 49, 50(ii) and 50(iii), the following significant
directions were issued:
"48. Shri Satyajit Dighe, learned counsel for the Petitioner
rightly submitted that impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee was passed almost on the last day of twelve
months mandatory period and therefore, no time was left for
approaching this Court which is the only remedy available
i.e. the constitutional remedy. Thus Petitioner's right to
approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is violated....
49. However, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulharkar (supra)
Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat
Act, 1958 is mandatory and therefore time limit provided
therein cannot be extended. However, we are constrained
to issue directions to all the Caste Scrutiny Committees
to decide the matters much before the mandatory
period of twelve months if the aforesaid provisions are
applicable. However, this will be subject to the condition
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
179
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
that the applicant completely co-operates in disposal of
the proceedings in time bound manner and do not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
50. (ii) All the District Caste Scrutiny Committees are
directed to dispose of the matters which are covered by
the mandatory period of twelve months as provided in
Section 10-1A and Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 9A of the Maharashtra
Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial
Townships Act, 1965, in Section 5-B of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Section 5-B of
the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period
of eight months subject to following conditions:
(a) The concerned successful candidate who has applied for
getting caste certificate validated to convey his election
result and this order to the relevant District Caste Scrutiny
Committee personally or through his Advocate within a
period of two weeks from the date of declaration of the
result of his election and pointing out to the Committee
the aforesaid time period of twelve months as provided
in the aforesaid provisions with a request to expedite the
hearing and to complete the proceedings within the time
prescribed in this judgment.
(b) The relevant District Caste Scrutiny Committee to
fix tentative time table for disposal of the said case
in maximum period of eight months from the above
referred communication of the successful candidate to
the Committee. However while fixing the time table the
Committee shall also have regard to the provisions of said
Act and said Rules.
(c)
The concerned successful candidate to completely
cooperate in expeditious disposal of the respective
proceedings before the committee and shall not take any
adjournment without valid reason.
(d) It is specifically directed that in case such successful
candidate fails to comply with the above directions then the
time limit as fixed herein will not apply to such proceedings.
180
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii) The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra
is directed to circulate to all the District Caste Scrutiny
Committees copy of this judgment within a period of 30
days from today."
It is obvious from the above directions issued on 27th October, 2020
(well before the Appellant No. 1 filed the application for the Validity
Certificate on 30.12.2020) that within two weeks from the declaration
of the result the successful candidate from the reserved seats was
obligated to convey his election result and the order and the judgment
of the High Court to the relevant Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
candidate was also to point out the aforesaid time limit and request
for an expeditious hearing and completion of proceeding within the
said period. It is further clear that the Scrutiny Committee was to
fix a tentative time table and dispose of the said application within
a maximum period of eight months from the date of the aforesaid
communication. The successful candidate was to co-operate in the
expeditious disposal of the respective proceedings. Most importantly,
it was specifically directed that in case the successful candidate
failed to comply with the directions, then the time limit fixed therein
will not apply to such proceedings.
18. It is also the understanding of the Appellant No. 1, as evident from
the undertaking furnished along with his second application on
14.06.2023, which is in the following terms:
"I, Applicant - Sudhir Vilas Kalel respectfully submitting this
I applicant Sudhir Vilas Kalel submitting my request
application that, I contested the election of Grampanchayat
Jambhulni, Tal Man in the year 2020 and I am elected in
the said election. In that respect Ld. Election Officer, Tal
Man has given me declaration/letter to me. Due to some
reasons, I could not submit the same within time and
therefore my proposal has been rejected by the Committee.
That today on 14.07.2023, I am again submitting my fresh
proposal and accepting the responsibilities for delay. I am
solely responsible for the delay caused. You are kindly
requested to accept my proposal and please issue me
the Caste Validity Certificate at your earliest."
(Emphasis Supplied)
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
181
Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.
19. No doubt, on this application which is filed on 14.06.2023 (filed long
after the submission of his nomination on 30.12.2020), he obtained
the Validity Certificate on 12.07.2023.
20. In this background we need to examine whether the validation
under Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 applies to
the case of the Appellant No. 1. The provisions of Sections 3 and
4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, along with its Statement
of Objects and Reasons, are set out and analyzed in the later part
of the judgment.
21. A factual aspect that needs to be noticed is that on 26.05.2023,
the Tehsildar forwarded a report to the Respondent No.11 - District
Collector, Satara informing that the Appellant No. 1 Sudhir Vilas
Kalel has failed to produce his Caste Validity Certificate within the
prescribed time as per Section 10(1A) of the Panchayats Act.
Proceedings arising from the No Confidence Motion
22. On 13.06.2023, eight Members moved a No Confidence Motion
against Appellant No. 2-Sushila Sitaram Kalel, expressing No
Confidence in her being the Sarpanch. The eight Respondents herein
voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. If Appellant No.1 was
entitled to sit, the total number of members would be eleven and eight
members voting would only constitute 72.73%. If the Appellant No.1
was not entitled to sit, then the total number of members would be
ten and eight members voting would constitute 80%. On 19.06.2023,
on the ground that there was absence of minimum three-fourth of
the Members voting in favour of the motion, the No Confidence
Motion was ordered as rejected. The relevant part of Section 35 of
the Panchayats Act which deals with the process of No Confidence
Motion is extracted below:
"35. Motion of no confidence. -
(1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by not less
than two third of the total number of the members
who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at
any meeting of the panchayat against the Sarpanch
or the Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof
to the Tahsildar as may be prescribed. Such notice
once given shall not be withdrawn.
182
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(2) Within seven days from the date of receipt by him
of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahasildar,
shall convene a special meeting of the panchayat at
a time to be appointed by him and he shall preside
over such meeting. At such special meeting, the
Sarpanch or the Upa- Sarpanch against whom the
motion of no confidence is moved shall have a right
to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings
at the meeting including the right to vote.
(3) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than
three-fourth of the total number of the members who
are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any
meeting of the panchayat or the Upa-Sarpanch, as
the case may be, shall forthwith stop exercising all
the powers and perform all the functions and duties
of the office and thereupon such powers, functions
and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch in case
the motion is carried out against the Sarpanch; and
in case the motion is carried out against both the
Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, in such officer, not
below the rank of Extension Officer, as may be
authorised by the Block Development Officer, till the
dispute, if any, referred to under sub-section (3B) is
decided: ..."
23. On 23.06.2023, respondents no. 1 to 8 filed a Writ Petition before the
High Court praying that the No Confidence Motion against Appellant
No. 2 be declared to be duly and validly carried, and for consequential
directions directing the Appellant No. 2 to forthwith stop exercising all
the powers, functions and duties as the Sarpanch. Further directions
for declaring election to the post of Sarpanch were also prayed.
24. On 12.07.2023, the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Satara granted the Caste Validity Certificate to the Appellant No.