NDLI: Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Mumbai MunicipalCorporation Act, 1888 – s. 5B – In one civil appeal, the respondentand appellant contested the election on the seat of counsellor inMumbai Municipal Corporation reserved for backward class citizens– s.5B of the 1888 Act required the candidate to submit caste validitycertificate on the date of filing nomination paper – It is provided inthe second proviso to s.5B that if a person fails to produce thevalidity certificate within a period of six months (now twelve months)from the date of election, the election shall be deemed to have beenterminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being aCounsellor – On 23.02.2017 respondent was declared elected –The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 14.08.2017 refused togrant caste validity certificate in favour of the respondent – Therespondent filed writ petition challenging the order of the ScrutinyCommittee dated 14.08.2017 – The High Court passed an interimorder dated 18.08.2017 in favour of respondent by staying the orderdated 14.08.2017 and directed not to take any action ofdisqualification against the respondent till the pendency of the writpetition – Thereafter, the High Court quashed the order of theScrutiny Committee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration– In another civil appeal, both the appellant and respondent no.5contested election to Mumbai Municipal Corporation ward reservedfor backward class citizen – The respondent no.5 was declaredelected on 23.02.2017 – The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claimof the respondent no.5 that she belongs to ‘Koyari caste’ – Therespondent no. 5 filed writ petition before the High Court – TheHigh Court passed interim order dated 22.08.2017 directing not totake any coercive action against the respondent no. 5 – Later, theHigh Court set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committeeand declared that the respondent no.5 belonged to the ‘Koyari caste’– Whether the interim orders passed by the High Court in both thecivil appeals, directing not to take any coercive action against thewrit petitioners and allowing writ petitioners to continue on theirseats, were the orders beyond the jurisdiction of the High Courtu/Art. 226 and could not have been passed in view of the statutoryscheme of s. 5B – Held: The power u/Art. 226 of the Constitutionoverrides any contrary provision in a statute and the power of theHigh Court u/Art. 226 cannot be taken away or abridged by anycontrary provision in a statute – When a citizen has right to judicialreview against any decision of statutory authority, the High Courtin exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain thestatus quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not beinfructuous – The interim order can always be passed by a HighCourt in exercise of writ jurisdiction to maintain the status quo inaid of the relief claimed so that at the time of final decision of thewrit petition, the relief may not become infructuous – Further, s.5Bof the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act does not oust thejurisdiction of High Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution – There isno fetter in the jurisdiction of the High Court in granting an interimorder in a case where caste claim of the respondents was illegallyrejected before the expiry of period of six months and the HighCourt granted the interim order before the expiry of the period ofsix months, as then prescribed – In the instant case, the deemingfiction under s.5B of retrospective termination of the election couldnot come in operation due to the interim order passed by the HighCourt – The interim orders passed by the High Court were not beyondthe jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 320
Petitioner	Benedict Denis Kinny
Respondent	Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1080
Judgement Date	2020-03-19
Case Number	1429-1430

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors Vs. Property Owners’ Association & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Thomas Mathew & Ors.

Ratilal S. Pujara (since Deceased) Thr. His Lrs. Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

M.k. Palia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Another

Jayesh Dhanesh Goragandhi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay and Ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. and Anr.

Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. Vs. Kamla Mills Ltd.

Poonam Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.

Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors Vs. Property Owners’ Association & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Thomas Mathew & Ors.

Ratilal S. Pujara (since Deceased) Thr. His Lrs. Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

M.k. Palia & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Another

Jayesh Dhanesh Goragandhi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay and Ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. and Anr.

Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. Vs. Kamla Mills Ltd.

Poonam Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda & Ors.