SAU KUSUM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 675 
..,,. 
" 
SAU KUSUM 
A 
v. 
.. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7313 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
\.. 
Election - Panchayat elections in State of Maharashtra 
- Reserved seat - Entitlement to contest - Of migrants to 
State pursuant to re-organisation thereof - Appellant contested c 
elections claiming OBC status stating that she belonged to 
-r' 
carpenter caste - Family of appellant had purportedly 
migrated from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra, after 
reorganization of the two States - Election of appellant 
challenged on ground that she did not belong to OBC - Caste D 
Scrutiny Committee relying upon a Government circular 
concluded that appellant was not a resident of Maharashtra 
; 
prior to 1967 and accordingly declined to verify her caste claim 
-
Writ petition -
On direction of High Court, Scrutiny 
Committee considered the matter afresh and concluded that 
appellant was a 'Sutar' - Order of Scrutiny Committee placed E 
before High Court - Writ petition ultimately dismissed - On 
appeal, held: If people belonging to carpenter Caste are 
recognized as OBC, both in Madhya Pradesh and 
Maharashtra being 'Badhai' in former and 'Sutar' in latter and 
since Caste Scrutiny Committee found appellant to be F 
t· 
belonging to 'Sutar' caste, the matter requires reconsideration 
- If appellant migrated to Maharashtra before 1967, she would 
be considered to be a permanent resident of Maharashtra -
Matter to be considered afresh by Scrutiny Committee with 
liberty to appellant to adduce evidence on the question as to G 
when she had migrated. 
Appellant contested panchayat elections in 
'""' 
Maharashtra claiming OBC status stating that she 
... 
belonged to the carpenter caste, and was elected . 
675 
H 
... 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
e 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
The family of appellant had purportedly migrated from 
Chhindwara region in the State of Madhya Pradesh to 
Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra, after a part of 
Chhindwara 
region 
came to Maharashtra on 
reorganization of the two States. People belonging to 
8 
carpenter Caste were purportedly recognized as OBC, 
both in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra being Badhai 
in the former and Sutar in the latter. 
The election of appellant was challenged on ground 
that she did not belong to OBC caste. In this regard, an 
C application was filed before Caste Scrutiny Committee. 
The Scrutiny Committee arrived at a finding as regards 
the parentage of appellant and relying upon a circular 
issued by the State of Maharashtra dated 21.8.1996 
concluded that appellant was not a resident of 
Maharashtra prior to 1967 and accordingly declined to 
D verify her caste claim. 
Aggrieved, appellant filed writ petition. On an interim 
direction of the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee 
considered the matter afresh and concluded that 
appellant was a 'Sutar'. The order of the Scrutiny 
E Committee was placed before High Court, which 
ultimately dismissed the writ petition. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the 
High Court failed to consider that even the Caste Scrutiny 
Committee opined that the appellant was a 'Sutar', which 
F 
comes within purview of OBC in the State of Maharashtra 
and, thus, the said decision could not have been set aside 
by High Court and that too in the writ petition filed by the 
appellant. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If it is a fact that the people belonging to 
the carpenter Caste are recognized as OBC, both in 
Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra being Badhai in the 
former and Sutar in the latter and keeping in view of the 
fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has found 
SAU KUSUM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
677 
... 
appellant to be belonging to the Sutar caste; the matter 
A 
requires reconsideration. [Para 11) [684-C] 
\ 
1.2. There is nothing on record to show as to when 
appellant had migrated to the State of Maharashtra. If she 
had migrated to the State of Maharashtra before 1967, she 
would be considered to be a permanent resident of 8 
Maharashtra. [Para 12) [684-G] 
1.3. It is one thing to say that appellant, being not a 
t 
permanent resident of the State, would not be entitled to 
contest any election. If she is to be conferred the said 
status, she will be entitled to all the benefits to which c 
members of the said caste are entitled to but would also 
... 
be entitled to other benefits i.e. not the benefit to contest 
_.. 
in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.