Single Bench rejected the Petitioner's claim for O.B.C. benefits due to fabricated documents and lack of pre-designation residence. Dismissed petition under Art. 226 relying on state Act.
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.
1/2
WP9091-22.10.sxw
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9091 OF 2012
Fehmidabi Shaikh Aziz versus Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 and another
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar for the Petitioner.
Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, and RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ.
22 October 2012.
P.C. :
The claim of the Petitioner who belonged to the Kasab caste which came to be designated as an O.B.C. on 13 August 1967 has been rejected by the impugned order of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste claims. The earlier order of remand was passed by this Court in view of the fact that a copy of the report of the vigilance cell did not appear to have been furnished to the Petitioner. Admittedly thereafter, a copy of the vigilance report has been furnished to the Petitioner and an adequate opportunity was granted to controvert what has was stated therein.
1 2011 (6) Mh. L.J. 414.
WP9091-22.10.sxw
PNP 2/2
The reference before the larger Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court was necessitated in view of certain specific observations contained in the earlier judgment in Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development2 . While considering the reference, the Bench of three Learned Judges in Dayaram 's case has held that where a petition against an order of the Scrutiny Committee is disposed of by a Single Judge of the High Court, the observation in Madhuri Patil to the effect that no appeal would lie to the Division Bench (even where there is a vested right to file an intra court appeal) and will only be subject to the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution did not reflect the correct position in law. The issue before the Supreme Court in Dayaram's case is therefore completely different and will not assist the Petitioner. In the present case, the only question before the Scrutiny Committee was whether the Petitioner has established the caste claim on the basis of cogent and reliable documentary and other material. The Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the claim was based on bogus documentary material and the Petitioner was unable to establish residence prior to the date on which the community was designated as an O.B.C. In this view of the matter, no case for interference under Article 226 is made out. In view of the provisions of Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 the admission which has been granted to the Petitioner cannot be protected. The State legislature in Maharashtra has made a specific provision which governs the field. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(Rajesh G. Ketkar J.)
2 (1994) 6 SCC 241.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Petitioner has established a valid caste claim for O.B.C. benefits.
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's findings of fabricated documents bar relief.
Scope of Article 226 writ jurisdiction against the Scrutiny Committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dayaram v. Sudhir BathamDistinguished¶17
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham
Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal DevelopmentDistinguished¶17
Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Fehmidabi Shaikh Aziz
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Rajesh G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
