Quashed

Kokila Raghunath Dhodia v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2008WP/2127/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition quashed a caste validity certificate issued to a respondent for violating verification rules under Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe Certificates Rules 2003, remanding the matter for afresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for afresh decision after following prescribed procedure; parties to appear before Committee on 22.09.2008.

Kokila Raghunath Dhodia Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2127 OF 2007

¶5

 Kokila Raghunath Dhodia .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.C.K.Bhangoji h/f Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the
 petitioner

¶9

 Mr.A.L.Patki, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2

¶10

 Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.J.K.Bhatia
 for respondent nos.3

¶11

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

 2. The petitioner has challenged the issuance

¶16

 of validity certificate in favour of respondent
 no.3 on the ground that the respondent nos.2
 Committee has issued a certificate of validity
 dated 30.11.06 to respondent no.3 without following
 the procedure prescribed for verification of caste

¶17

¶18

 certificate.

¶19

 3. It is submitted that the caste certificate
 came to be validated merely by placing reliance on
 the certificates filed by respondent no.3. It is
 specifically pointed out to us that all the
 certificates on which reliance was placed by
 respondent no.3, respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee
 did not get it verified by referring it to the
 Vigilance Cell which was least expected within the
 procedure prescribed in accordance with the
 Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe Certificates
 (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
 Certificate Rules, 2003.

¶20

 4. On the other hand, it is submitted on
 behalf of the respondent nos.2 Caste Committee that
 if the Caste Scrutiny Committee is satisfied about
 the caste claim of the candidate on the basis of
 documents submitted, it is not necessary to refer
 the matter to the vigilance cell, or make any
 further enquiry and that the Caste Scrutiny
 Committee can issue validity certificate and,
 therefore, no fault can be attributed to the Caste

¶21

¶22

 Scrutiny Committee.

¶23

 5. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for
 respondent nos.3 submitted that the petitioner has
 no locus standi to challenge the validity
 certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
 in favour of respondent nos.3 and that the stand
 taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is justified
 as the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned
 order has specifically referred to the documents
 which the respondent no.3 has furnished to the
 Caste Scrutiny Committee when she applied for
 verification of her caste certificate as belonging
 to Warli tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe for the
 purpose of verification.

¶24

 6. It is further submitted that it is out of
 political rivalry that the petitioner has
 approached this Court, and therefore, there is no
 merits in the petition and the same be dismissed.

¶25

 7. In order to satisfy ourselves, we had
 called for the original records and proceedings.
 We have gone through the records and proceedings

¶26

¶27

 and find that the procedure adopted by the Caste
 Scrutiny Committee cannot be approved in the matter
 of issuing validity certificate to respondent no.3.
 Respondent no.3 has submitted only two certificates
 i.e. her own School Leaving Certificate when she
 was admitted to New Girls School, Thane and one
 more certificate in support of her claim i.e. of
 her relative from Thane Mahanagar Palika School
 No.38. On the basis of these two School Leaving
 Certificates, probably the Sub Divisional Officer,
 Thane Division, Thane issued the caste certificate
 in favour of the applicant.

¶28

 8. If this is accepted as sufficient proof of
 caste, then it will vest in the Caste Scrutiny
 Committee unguided and arbitrary power to issue
 Caste Validity Certificate without examining the
 genuineness of the claim of the candidate whose
 caste certificate is being scrutinised. In the
 present case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to
 have obtained report of the police vigilance cell
 and examine the claim of the respondent nos.3 in
 accordance with the Caste Certificate Rules 2003.

¶29

¶30

 9. We therefore, quash and set aside the

¶31

 impugned order and remit the matter to the Caste
 Scrutiny Committee to take afresh decision in the
 matter of verification of the caste certificate of
 respondent no.3 after following the procedure
 prescribed under the Acts and Rules which govern
 the subject.

¶32

 10. Needless to state that respondent nos.3 is
 given sufficient opportunity to establish the
 validity of her caste certificate. We expect the
 respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide
 the matter within 8 weeks from the date respondent
 no.3 appears before the caste scrutiny committee.
 We direct petitioner and respondent no.3 to appear
 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 22.09.2008.
 Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Records
 and Proceedings be forthwith returned to the

¶33

 learned counsel for the respondent nos.2.

¶34

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶35

 ( K.K. TATED, J )

Kokila Raghunath Dhodia v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokila Raghunath Dhodia v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyril Thomas Mecwan and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity and 4 Ors.

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty Vs B.M.C. and Ors.

Shri Krishna Kumar Ganga Prasad Agnihotri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Leno Anthony L. D Cruz Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani Vs Trhe Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Others