Remanded

Vitthal P. Chopade v. State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2012WP/736/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a caste certificate validation order as void for lack of reasons. The court found the order incoherent and arbitrary, setting it aside and remanding the matter to the committee for a fresh, reasoned decision within six months while keeping the respondent's election status intact.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision within six months.

Vitthal P. Chopade Vs State of Maharashtra, through Social… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Tapadia RR

¶2

1 / 4 WP/736/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 736 OF 2012

Vitthal P. Chopade

.Petitioner

State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.P.S.Dani i/b Prashant P Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P for Respondent nos 1,2 and 4. Mr Tejpal Ingale, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w S.S Shah, Advocate for respondent no.5.

¶9

CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & R.G.KETKAR,JJ. DATE : 25/09/2012

¶10

PC:

¶11

Heard.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has challenged the certificate validating the respondent no.5's caste as “Bajigar” on the ground that the decision of the respondent no.4 – Districtwise Caste Scrutiny Committee And Special District Social Welfare Officer, District -Kolhapur (for short, “Caste Scrutiny Committee”) suffers from an obvious error of law 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.5's caste certificate.

¶14

We have examined the decision of the Caste Scrutiny

¶15

2 / 4 WP/736/2012

¶16

Committee and the decision comprises of stray sentences written without any order stating in one place that the “geneology is not established” and in another place that the “geneology is established” on the basis of the 7/12 extract entry in the Record of Rights dated 21.11.2011. The so-called order carries another stray sentence that the great-grand father has been conferred with honour from Kurundwad Sansthan and that there is a partition in 1945 and 1966. The order contains the words “Bajigar-valid”. These words are encircled. The order is incoherent and does not disclose the fact that has been taken into account by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for arriving at the decision. Nor does it disclose the reason for arriving at the decision. 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.

¶17

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

¶18

the Supreme Court relied on the observations of Lord Denning, M.R.in Breen V Amalgamated Engg.Union (1971) 1 ALL ER 148

¶19

3 / 4 WP/736/2012

¶20

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 :

¶21

“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.”

¶22

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 taking a fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶23

Mr Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.5, submitted that the respondent no.5 has been elected on the basis that he belongs to 'Bajigar' community and

¶24

4 / 4 WP/736/2012

¶25

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.5 should not be prejudicially affected until the Caste Scrutiny Committee decides the matter properly.

¶26

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.

¶27

The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8.10.2012. All contentions of the parties, on merits, are kept open.

¶28

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶29

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

¶30

(S.A.BOBDE,J.)

Vitthal P. Chopade v. State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal P. Chopade v. State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena Vs Government of India and Ors.

Dinyar N. Karanjia Vs Mumbai Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Narendra Divan Singh Kalsi and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Raghuvansh D.Bhasin Vs National Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Bandopanth Dhondiram Munj and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vitthal P. Chopade Vs State of Maharashtra, through Social Welfare Dept and Ors.