This petition challenging a Scrutiny Committee's order verifying a caste claim for Respondent no.5 was dismissed. The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that if the Vigilance Cell report supports the claim, no hearing is required and the certificate must be issued.
Petition rejected. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-1601-11.sxw
1
dgm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2011
Mrs. Jyoti Deepak Mhettar .... Petitioner vs State of Maharashtra & ors. .... Respondents
.... Respondents
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the petitioner.
Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.4.
Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.R. P. Walvekar for respondent no.5.
CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE : December 13, 2011
P.C.:
By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of Respondent no.5 that she belongs to kunbi backward class is valid.
2 We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused
wp-1601-11.sxw
2
the record. It is clear from the record that pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development1 , enquiry was referred to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell report was received by the Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell report was in favour of Respondent no.5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police endorsed that recommendation of the Police Inspector. The Scrutiny Committee, in view of the report of the Vigilance Cell, issued validity certificate in favour of Respondent No.5. The direction issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) case that once a report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of a candidate, then nothing further is required to be done by the Committee in case the Committee agrees with the report is considered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham and ors .2 . What is observed by the Supreme Court in para 22 is relevant. It reads as under :
“22 Each scrutiny committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The core function of the scrutiny committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is received by the
1 (1994) 6 SCC 241
2 2011 (6) Mh. L. J. 414
wp-1601-11.sxw
3
scrutiny committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examines the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the committee. If the report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a show-cause notice is issued by the committee to the candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to place any material in support of his claim, and after making such enquiry as it deems expedient, the scrutiny committee considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell report, as also any objections that may be raised by any opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and passes appropriate orders. The scrutiny committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the scrutiny committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number of seats or posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming to belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, this Court directed constitution of such scrutiny committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till the concerned legislature makes appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the benefit of
wp-1601-11.sxw
4
reservation, relying upon such caste certificates.” (Emphasis supplied).
3 It is clear from the above quoted judgment of the Supreme Court that if the report of the Vigilance Cell is in support of the candidate, then the Scrutiny Committee in case it agrees with the report is not supposed to hold any hearing and has to issue validity certificate. In view of this, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the Scrutiny Committee issuing validity certificate in favour of Respondent no.5. The Petition has no substance. The same is rejected. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in issuing a validity certificate to Respondent no.5 based on the Vigilance Cell report without holding a hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentRelied on¶21
(1994) 6 SCC 241 · Who else cites this
Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham and orsRelied on¶21
2011 (6) Mh. L. J. 414 · Who else cites this
Mrs. Jyoti Deepak Mhettar
State of Maharashtra
Respondent no.5
D. K. Deshmukh
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
