Gujarat High Court
Makvana Pratikkumar Biharilal vs Union Of India on 16 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8154 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE -SD/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
MAKVANA PRATIKKUMAR BIHARILAL & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
LOVE S MODI(8362) for the Petitioner Nos. 1,2
MR. M. D. RAHEVAR, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3,4
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Respondent Nos. 1,2
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 16/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rahevar, learned AGP
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.3
and 4 – State and Mrs. Rawal, learned advocate waives service
of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. Present petitioners claims to be the beneficiaries of
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
scheme by contending that petitioner no.1 belongs to
scheduled tribe/scheduled caste category and is married to
petitioner no.2 who belongs to “other backward class (OBC)”
category. It is submitted that in case where a person
belonging to scheduled caste married to non scheduled caste
person, they shall be entitled to benefits under scheme called
“Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter-
Caste Marriages”.
2.1 The petitioners have therefore approached this Court
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Articles 14 & 21, challenging the communication dated 12 th
December, 2023 passed by the Director, Dr. Ambedkar
Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of Gujarat. By the said impugned communication,
the proposal submitted by the petitioners seeking benefit
under the aforesaid scheme has not been accepted in view of
the guidelines prescribed under the Scheme. The only reason
which is cited by the respondent no.2 authority is that the
application has not been submitted in the office within one
year of marriage.
3. It would be appropriate to examine the object with
which the Scheme has been introduced. The Scheme was
initially introduced on a pilot basis for a period of two years
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
i.e. in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 and thereafter it has
been continued as a regular scheme. The object of the scheme
as can be gathered from the abstract of guidelines placed on
record is to appreciate the socially bold step of inter-caste
marriage by the newly married couple and to extend financial
incentive to the couple to enable them to settle down in the
initial phase of their marrige life. It further clarifies that the
same should not be construed as a supplementary scheme to
unemployment generation or poverty alleviation scheme. The
abstract refers to the object no. XXXI in the memorandum of
association of Dr. Ambedkar Foundation in its background
which mandates “to organize special campaigns for removal of
untouchability and caste based prejudices and for bringing in
attitudinal change in the society through communal harmony
and brotherhood and receive Government assistance for such
purposes”. Thus, in other words, the scheme enforces
significant steps to reduce the caste-prejudices, abolish
untouchability and spread the values of liberty, equality,
fraternity etc. in the society. The aim seems to be to achieve
constitutional values.
4. In light of the aforesaid guidelines, examining the
narrow controversy involved in the present petition, the
undisputed facts as can be noticed are that the petitioner no.1
belonging to the scheduled caste category has married with a
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
person belonging to non scheduled caste. Thus, it is a case of
inter-caste marriage. One of the essential requirements of the
eligibility criteria mentioned in the abstract of the guidelines
of the aforesaid scheme suggest that the marriage should be
followed as per the law and duly registered under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. It further requires an affidavit of
respective spouses to be filed declaring there being legal
marriage and in matrimonial alliance. The petitioners got
married on 27th February, 2020 as per the Hindu religion rites
and rituals. The couple applied for registration of their
marriage in view of the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
immediately thereafter and certificate to that effect was
issued by the competent authority on 2nd March, 2020. The
couple thereafter applied on 23rd November, 2020 before the
respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.3 authorities in
terms of the scheme. The proposal was therefore duly
submitted within a period of one year of their marriage.
However, the Collector, Ahmedabad – respondent no.4
forwarded the said application to the respondent no.2 herein
on 25th January, 2022. The respondent no.2 being Director of
the Foundation by taking too technical a stand and on
erroneous interpretation of the guidelines of the scheme, has
not entertained the proposal as being not submitted within a
period of one year from the date of the marriage.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
5. The responsible officer from the office of the respondent
no.4 – District Collector, Ahmedabad has submitted on
affidavit that the petitioners have submitted an application to
the respondent no.4 on 23 rd November, 2020, which falls
within the time frame. It is further submitted that upon
receipt of such proposal the same was scrutinized inasmuch
as necessary opinion was sought for from the office of Deputy
Director, Social Welfare Department on 4th December, 2020
and thereby seeking verification of the caste of the petitioner
no.1. It is submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the
Government Departments were working with 50% staff,
therefore, the opinion was received in this regard on 2 nd July,
2021. Thereafter a necessary process was undertaken to
forward the proposal to the respondent no.2 – Director of Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation. Such proposal was forwarded with
recommendation on 25th January, 2022. Thus, the responsible
officer on affidavit has submitted that the time limit specified
under the Scheme relates to the submission of proposal within
one year by the petitioners and not with regard to proposal
with recommendation. According to respondent no.4 no time
limit has been prescribed for submission of recommendation
by the competent authority viz. Collector is concerned. The
affidavit further discloses the cases of similarly situated
applicants cases being considered in the past. Lastly, the
affidavit mentions that the scheme being beneficial legislation,
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
the respondent no.2 ought not to have taken such a technical
stand and has therefore, supported the case of the petitioners.
The respondent no.2 has not filed any counter to the aforesaid
submission of the respondent no.4 authority.
6. On overall appreciation of the record and noticing a
benevolent object, in my opinion, the authority ought not to
have taken such a technical stand of delay as a ground for not
accepting their application thereby refusing the incentive
extended under the scheme. The whole object of the scheme
seems to be to bring about sustainable social incarnation,
harmony and fraternity amongst different castes of the society
by extending incentives to inter-caste married couples is to
enable them to settle down in the initial phase of their
marriage life. The scheme can be treated as a beneficial
statute which aims to confer benefit on individuals or class of
persons by relieving them of onerous obligations under
contracts entered into by them or which tend to protect
persons against oppressive acts from individuals with whom
they stand in certain relations. In such a class of beneficial
statute, the well established principle in the construction of
such statutes is that there should not be any narrow
interpretation. The enforcing agencies should be generous
towards the persons on whom benefit should be conferred.
The rule of beneficial construction implies that to meet the
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
object, the attempt should be to interpret liberally to give the
widest possible meaning to it. Beneficial construction is an
interpretation to secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly
denied relief. The interpretation of a statue should be done in
such a way that mischief is suppressed and remedy is
advanced.
7. Applying the aforesaid principles, the period prescribed
for submission of proposal within one year of marriage cannot
be construed as a strict provision in light of the benevolent
object underlining the scheme. It clearly emerges on record
that proposal was submitted by the petitioners on 23 rd
November, 2020 to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities
immediately within one year of their marriage and the
recommendation dated 25th January, 2022 was later on
addressed by the District Collector office along with the
proposal. Thus, the petitioners had met the deadline as
prescribed under the scheme and the subsequent forwarding
of recommendation by respondent no.2 cannot be attributed
to the petitioners, which was not within their control.
8. The impugned communication dated 12th December,
2023 is therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2
is hereby directed to reconsider the proposal dated 23 rd
November, 2020 and to extend the benefit envisaged under
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8154/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/01/2025
undefined
the Scheme. Let, the decision be taken on such proposal
preferably within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.
9. With these observations, present petition stands
allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
AMAR RATHOD…
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jan 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 20 21:33:02 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link