Partly allowed

Sabera Begum Mohammed Azim v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Nov 2014WP/3337/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, partly allowed a writ petition challenging a caste certification order. The Court quashed an order passed by an improperly constituted two-member committee lacking a Research Officer and field verification. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by a properly constituted committee to conduct field verification and investigate under the 2001 A

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.10.1997 was quashed. The caste claim was remanded for fresh consideration with mandatory field verification.

Sabera Begum Mohammed Azim Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 3337/01

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.3337/2001

¶6

Smt.Sabera Begum d/o Mohammed Azim.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri A.B. Chalak, Advocate h/f Shri S.B. Talekar,
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2.
None present for respondent no.3.

¶12

Shri Atul Karad, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 13.11.2014

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard Shri A.B. Chalak, Advocate h/f Shri S.B.

¶18

Talekar, Advocate for petitioner; Shri K.M. Suryawanshi,

¶19

AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Shri Atul Karad,
Advocate for respondent no.4. Nobody appears for
respondent no.3.

¶20

2]Petitioner has questioned order dated 20.10.1997

¶21

passed by respondent no.2 – scrutiny committee upholding

¶22

WP 3337/01

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

caste claim of respondent no.3 as belonging to Momin
caste. Nobody appears for respondent no.3. Advocate
Shri Atul Karad appearing for respondent no.4 has
submitted that on the basis of said validity and caste
certificate, respondent no.3 contested the election as a
backward class citizen in April 2000 and was declared
elected. She has completed her tenure and, therefore,
may not be interested in appearing before this Court.
3]Advocate Shri A.B. Chalak submits that petitioner
contested against respondent no.3 and because of wrong
certificate secured by her, respondent no.3 could succeed
and, therefore, petitioner who belongs to Momin caste has
been defeated. He submits that thus petitioner possesses

¶25

necessary locus to file present petition as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan V/s State of Maharashtra & others reported at AIR 2013 SC 58 .

¶26

He further contends that scrutiny committee while undertaking the exercise of verification was not constituted as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others reported at AIR 1995 SC 94. There were only two members and there was no

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

assistance of any Research Officer. No field

¶29

verification was done and Vigilance Cell report was never obtained. He contends that this lacunae are sufficient to vitiate the order. He, therefore, prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the order dated 20.10.1997 and also election of respondent no.3 as a ward member of respondent no.4.

¶30

4] The order of two members was questioned by filing an application before very same committee by present petitioner. That has been rejected by three members on 28.8.2000. This committee consisting of three members appears to be constituted in terms of directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil .

¶31

5]Learned AGP as also Advocate Shri Atul Karad submit
that as tenure of respondent no.3 has already been over,
the election cannot be set aside. They further submit

¶32

that as per law then prevailing, respondent no.2 –
committee has completed the exercise of verification.

¶33

6] Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (supra) itself lays down the modalities to be followed for such verification. Hon'ble Apex Court then

¶34

WP 3337/01

¶35

- 4 -

¶36

has pointed out need of constitution of proper caste scrutiny committee. As per said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the designation of members who can be appointed on committee are also prescribed. Hon'ble Apex Court has also in paragraph no.12 pointed out how the committee has to proceed further in the matter of verification. The Research Officer has to undertake field verification by visiting the place of residence of such candidate and his / her parents. The situation has been explained lateron by Hon'ble Apex Court in its second judgment delivered between very same parties reported at AIR 1997 SC 2581. As per that judgment, committee has to consist of minimum three members. Here the impugned order shows that order is passed by a committee which consisted of District Social Welfare Officer and Divisional Social Welfare Officer of Aurangabad Division. Prima facie , no Research Officer was associated in the process of said caste verification.

¶37

7]In such matters, this Court in its judgment

¶38

delivered at Nagpur in Vijaykumar Narayanrao Kale V/s State of Maharashtra & others reported at 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 930 has held that after coming into force of the

¶39

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 (Act No.23 of 2001), the situation
underwent slight change. Said enactment recognizes basic

¶40

document i.e. caste certificates issued by competent
authorities prior to 2001, but does not recognize
validities given prior to coming into its force. Thus,
validity obtained from a scrutiny committee functioning
u/s 6 of Act No.23 of 2001 is only held to be binding.
This Court at Nagpur, therefore, has remanded such

¶41

matters back to scrutiny committee for its fresh
consideration. There is no reason to deviate from said
practice in present facts.

¶42

8]Accordingly, impugned judgment dated 20.10.1997 is

¶43

quashed and set aside. Caste claim of respondent no.3 is

¶44

restored back to the file of respondent no.2 for its
further consideration in accordance with provisions of
Act No.23 of 2001. The scrutiny committee shall arrange

¶45

for field verification and after obtaining report of
Vigilance Cell and giving necessary opportunity to

¶46

WP 3337/01

¶47

respondent no.3 as also present petitioner, pass suitable
final orders on caste validity claim of respondent no.3
within further period of eight months after communication

¶48

of this order to it. Writ petition is thus partly

¶49

allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶50

ndk/ c13111420.doc

Sabera Begum Mohammed Azim v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabera Begum Mohammed Azim v. State of Maharashtra 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

Vaijinath Manik Sable and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Padmaji Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Pandit Sagat Vs Ribeka Nitin Sagat