In W.P. No. 158 of 2021-BOM HC- Person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach Court: Bombay HC imposes cost on litigant who knowingly produced fabricated documents to substantiate false claim  
Justices R.D. Dhanuka & Kamal Khata [18-10-2022]

Read Order: Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 

Mansimran Kaur

Mumbai, October 19, 2022: Entertaining a petitioner, who has knowingly produced fabricated and fraudulent documents to substantiate a false claim, cannot be tolerated at any stage, the Bombay High Court has observed.

The Division Bennch of Justice R.D. Dhanuka and Justice Kamal Khata dismissed the present petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner was seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated August 27, 2019 passed by the second respondent,  District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Caste Certificate. The petitioner was also seeking order and direction against respondent to grant validity to the Caste Certificates dated  November 4,  2016 issued by the Competent Authority to the petitioner.

The petitioner was also seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification dated January 6, 2022 debarring/disqualifying the petitioner for 6 years from the date of the order for being elected or being a Councilor of the third respondent. 

The Division bench was of the view  that the second respondent committee  considered the entire material on record and recorded findings based on evidence placed before it and after considering the same had rightly come to the conclusion to invalidate the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.

Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition were that  the  petitioner had made an application for grant of Caste Certificate to the Competent Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi.

 It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Muslim Julaha, an Other Backward Class (OBC) at Serial No.57 of the Government Resolution dated November 13, 1967 as amended from time to time.

The Competent Authority granted a Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner was Muslim Julaha, an OBC at Serial No.57 of the Government Resolution dated November 13, 1967. The petitioner filed nomination papers for one of the posts of Corporator/Councillor for the General Election of the respondent Corporation and more particularly in respect of Ward No.78. 

The said post was declared to be reserved for other Backward Class Women. Nomination paper of the petitioner was declared valid by the Election Officer of the fourth respondent. The election of the said post for the period from 2017 to 2022 was held on February 12, 2017. The petitioner secured the highest votes, representing the National Congress Party and was declared elected.

 The petitioner was required to submit the Validity Certificate of the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, made an application to the second respondent  along with the documents for validating the caste claim of the petitioner.

 The fifth respondent filed a complaint/objection to the said application of the petitioner disputing the caste claim of the petitioner and passed an order dated  August  21, 2017 and granted Validity Certificate to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated August 21, 2017 passed by the second respondent- Committee validating the caste claim of the petitioner, the fifth respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court. 

This Court passed an order in the said writ petition in June  12, 2019 remanding back the matter to the second respondent- Committee and the directed the second respondent -  Committee to consider various issues formulated by this Court in the said judgment.

The petitioner was served with a notice dated July 31, 2019 and also with a copy of the Vigilance Report dated  July 22,  2019 and July 29,  2019. 

The petitioner filed a further affidavit in support of her caste claim in response to the said notice. The Vigilance Officer recorded the statements of various persons and submitted a report before the second respondent. 

After hearing the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted that after perusing the impugned Order of the second respondent committee, it was abundantly clear that the second respondent had accepted the report of the vigilance cell. 

It was evident that they had considered every aspect of the matter and given their due consideration to all the documents produced, oral arguments and written submissions of both the advocates, the Court stated. 

 It was further noted by the Court that the second respondent committee  considered the entire material on record and recorded findings based on evidence placed before it and after considering the same had rightly come to the conclusion to invalidate the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The findings rendered by the respondent were not perverse, the Court stated. 

It is well settled that this Court is not to sit in appeal to re-appreciate the findings as held by the Supreme Court in case of Kum. Madhuri Patil vs Additional Commissioner Tribal Development ((1994) 6 SCC 641). Thus, this Court was of the view that  it was  not inclined to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the second respondent- committee. 

It was further noted by the Court that the petitioner who was an applicant under the MSCC Rules is admittedly born after the deemed date i.e.  October 13, 1967 and ought to have applied from the place of permanent residence of her father or grandfather which would be Pratapgad in U.P. and not from Maharashtra. She being a migrant after the deemed date was not entitled to contest elections in Maharashtra.  

At the outset, the Court observed that entertaining a petitioner who has knowingly produced fabricated and fraudulent documents to substantiate a false claim cannot be tolerated at any stage. It was further stated by the Court that it had no hesitation to say that a person, whose case was based on falsehood, had no right to approach the Court. 

The petitioner was guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. Thus, it found no infirmity to set aside the order dated August 27, 2019 passed by the second respondent. 

The petition was dismissed by the Bench.