Remanded

Balbirsinh Ishwarsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2012WP/2510/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order validating a caste certificate as Bawa due to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee's failure to record reasons and apply the affinity test. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision mandating reasons and a timeline, while protecting the petitioner's elected position temporarily. Case cited regarding failure to give reasons as denial of justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision within six months with recording of reasons; election of respondent 3 protected pending disposal; partie

Balbirsinh Ishwarsinh Rathod Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Tapadia RR

¶2

1 / 5 WP/2510/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2510 OF 2012

¶4

Balbirsinh Ishwarsinh Rathod

¶5

.Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Maharashtra,

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Mumbai Division …,

¶10

Pinki Murli Udasi,

¶11

Head Master, New English High School , .. Thane, 5. Head Master, Ulhasnagar Municipal School Board, .. Thane.

¶12

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P for Respondent -State. Ms Prabha Badadare I/b Mr S.Acharya, Advocates for respondent no.3.

CORAM :

S.A.BOBDE &

R.G.KETKAR,JJ.

RESERVED ON: 26/09/2012 PRONOUNCED ON : 09/10/2012

¶17

PC: (Per R.G.KETKAR,J.)

¶18

Heard.

¶19

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of parties.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged the certificate validating the respondent no.3's caste as Hindu “Bawa” on the ground that the decision of the respondent no.2 – Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Mumbai Division, (for short, “Caste Scrutiny Committee”) suffers from an obvious error of law

¶21

2 / 5 WP/2510/2012

¶22

apparent on the face of the record. In that, it discloses no reason whatsoever why the Caste Scrutiny Committee has decided to validate the respondent no.3's caste certificate. 4. We have examined the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the decision records that the third respondent has produced her school leaving certificate showing her caste 'Hindu' and father's school leaving certificate showing caste as “Bawa”. It further records that after perusal of the report of the Vigilance Cell as also the school leaving certificate of the third respondent's father, the claim of the respondent no.3 that she belongs to Bawa community, is accepted. The order does not disclose that it has applied the affinity test which is one of the basic requirements for validating the caste claim. The said requirement is evident from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94. The order shows that the Caste Scrutiny Committee carries grossly wrong impression about its function and the manner in which it is called upon to pass an order. The order also seems to have been passed in complete ignorance of how quasi judicial authorities are expected to function under a rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals to good administration.

¶23

3 / 5 WP/2510/2012

¶24

5. In State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Sing (2004) 1 SCC 547 –

¶25

the Supreme Court relied on the observations of Lord Denning, M.R.in Breen V Amalgamated Engg.Union (1971) 1 ALL ER 148 and observed :The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machienry (Dudley)Ltd V Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NRC) it was observed :

¶26

“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in :21: other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”

¶27

In Cyril Lasrado Vs. Juliana Maria Lasrado and Anr, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 431, in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Apex Court observed as under :

¶28

“Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought

¶29

4 / 5 WP/2510/2012

¶30

to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.

¶31

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 ALL ER 1148 observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery' (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”

¶32

We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order on the ground that it does not disclose any reason and is, therefore, patently arbitrary, illegal and is unsustainable. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for

¶33

5 / 5 WP/2510/2012

¶34

taking a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶35

Ms.Prabha Badadare, learned counsel for the respondent no3, submitted that the respondent no.3 has been elected on the basis that she belongs to 'Bawa' community and on the basis of the validity certificate which has been set aside by this court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the election of the respondent no.3 should not be prejudicially affected until the Caste Scrutiny Committee decides the matter properly.

¶36

The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall hear the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law, not later than six months from the date the petitioner appears before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶37

Parties are directed to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 5.11.2012. All contentions of the parties, on merits, are kept open.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶39

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

¶40

(S.A.BOBDE,J.)

Balbirsinh Ishwarsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbirsinh Ishwarsinh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra D. Hingwala Vs the Municipal Corporation of Geater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Kolhapur District Labours Co-Operative Societies Federation Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.

Shri. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat Vs Kailas Park Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

M/s. Patel Developers and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jyotiram Tukaram Gore Vs Food Corpration of India and 2 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Sharad Sankpal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.