Partly allowed

Sau. Ratna Anil Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2013WP/4219/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a caste validity certificate granted during a Supreme Court stay on a previous order setting aside committee orders, the Bench set aside the impugned certificate as the committee acted in breach of the stay, refusing to adjudicate on false claims.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was set aside.

Sau. Ratna Anil Gaikwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

905.wp.4219.13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4219 OF 2013

¶5

Sau. Ratna Anil Gaikwad .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Mr.H.M.Inamdar, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

Mr.S.S.Kulkarni i/b Mr.Amit Balkrishna Waray, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : V.M. KANADE &

¶11

K.R.SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 11^TH JULY, 2013

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and

¶15

the counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 and the learned AGP for State.

¶16

2 The Petitioner who is a defeated candidate of the Zilla Parishad elections has challenged the validity certificate which has been granted in favour of Respondent No.3 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 4^th May 2013. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under :

1/6

S.K.Talekar PA

905.wp.4219.13.doc

The Respondent No.3 has obtained a caste certificate in which his claim that he belong to ‘Kokana’ caste was accepted and thereafter on the basis of that certificate contested the Zilla Parishad elections and the Petitioner herein was defeated in the said elections. Respondent No.3, thereafter made an application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee seeking a validity certificate. The said application was allowed and the Caste Scrutiny Committee, without assigning any reasons, granted the caste validity certificate in favour of Respondent No.3. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition in this Court. Several other Petitions were filed in which similar orders which were passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee were challenged, since the certificate was granted without assigning any reason. All these Petitions were clubbed together and heard and decided by the Division Bench. The lead Petition being Writ Petition No.853 of 2013. In these Petitions, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. A further direction was given to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to follow the guidelines laid down in ‘ Madhuri Patil and Other´ other subsequent judgments of the Apex Court and also the provisions 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 (for short 'the said Act') and Rules framed there-

2/6

S.K.Talekar PA

905.wp.4219.13.doc

under and after making a fresh enquiry, a direction was given to re-verify all these certificates. On a request being made by the Additional Government Pleader, the impugned order was stayed for a period of 10 weeks in order to enable the Government to move the Apex Court against the said order.

¶27

3 Eventually, the State Government preferred an SLP to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court continued the stay which was granted by this Court until further orders. As a result of the stay granted by the Apex Court the direction given by this Court to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to re-verify the claim therefore was stayed by the direction given by the Supreme Court.

¶28

4 In spite of the stay granted by the Apex Court, Respondent No.3 herein again preferred another application before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Documents were filed and verification was alleged to be made as per the procedure laid down under the said Act and his application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the said impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

3/6

S.K.Talekar PA

905.wp.4219.13.doc

5 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner firstly submitted that the Petitioner having accepted the judgment and order passed by this Court and in fact admitted that he did not belong to ‘Kokana’ caste. It was therefore submitted that in view of the acceptance of the order of this Court, which had set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner had admitted that it was a false claim and therefore in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court. Respondent No.3 therefore was disqualified and was not entitled to continue as a Member of Zilla Parishad.

¶34

6 In our view, the said submission cannot be accepted in its entirety. It is an admitted position that against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the group of Petitions by their Order dated 4^th May 2012, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was set aside. However a direction was given to again reconsider the caste claim afresh. This order was however stayed for a period of 10 weeks and the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the Government continued the said stay granted by this Court to its own order. The effect of continuation therefore of the stay which was granted by the Supreme Court is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee therefore was prevented from complying with the directions which were given by this Court and as such could not have again on an application being made by Respondent No.3 made a fresh enquiry as per

4/6

S.K.Talekar PA

905.wp.4219.13.doc

the directions given by this Court. The enquiry which has now been made and the order which has been passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee therefore is non-est since the said exercise has been done despite the stay which has been granted by the Apex Court to the order passed by this Court. The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee therefore will have to be set aside since it is in breach of the order of stay granted by the Apex Court. As long as further orders are not passed by the Apex Court in all these group of matters therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot do the exercise of fresh re-verification. Also as far as the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, that having accepted the judgment of the High Court, the Petitioner’s claim should be declared as a false claim and consequential orders may be passed as envisaged under Section 10 of the said Act, cannot be accepted. Firstly, the Apex Court has granted stay to the order passed by the High Court and as such, it is immaterial and it is not open Respondent No.3 to accept the order passed by the High Court. And apart from that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is bound by the directions given by the Apex Court. As such, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.

5/6

S.K.Talekar PA

905.wp.4219.13.doc