Quashed

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014WP/6574/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order denying the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe status. The court held that the committee violated natural justice by failing to grant a reasonable delay for the petitioner's illness and denying a chance to respond to the Vigilance Cell's report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 8th October 2002 quashed; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh enquiry; petitioner directed to appear on 22nd December 2014.

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

wp6574

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6574 OF 2002

¶5

Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar a/w Ms Helen Koli-Mandlik for the
petitioner

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 4
Mr.R.M.Pethe for respondent No.3

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 3,2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2 and 4
as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the
order dated 8th October 2002 passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the caste
certificate obtained by the petitioner that he
belongs to Mannervarlu which is notified as a
Scheduled Tribe. Adjudication was made by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on the caste certificate of the
petitioner. By the impugned order, the caste claim
of the petitioner has been negatived.

¶12

2The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed
out that the first date of hearing fixed by the

¶13

2 wp6574

¶14

Caste Scrutiny Committee was 7th August 2002. On
that date, an adjournment was sought by the
petitioner on the ground of illness. However, even
a reasonable opportunity was not granted to the
petitioner and the hearing was concluded on the very
day. He invited our attention to the document at
Serial No.5 which is the Service Discharge
certificate of Shri S.G.Jakkal who retired from the
employment of Army on 31st March 1979 which mentions
his caste as Mannervarlu. He pointed out that the
said document has not been taken into consideration.
Moreover, he submitted that there was no opportunity
made available to the petitioner to deal with the
report of the Vigilance Cell at the time of hearing
before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶15

3The learned AGP relied upon the finding
recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He urged
that the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is
that the caste of the petitioner's brother and his
other relatives from 1937 to 1970 has been recorded
as Telgu Fulmali, Hindu Telgu Fulmali and Hindu
Other Backward Class (Telgu) and, therefore, no
purpose will be served by passing an order of
remand. His submission is that the oldest documents
have more probative value and therefore, no
interference is called for in writ jurisdiction. The
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supported
the learned AGP.

¶16

4On the last date, the record of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee was called for. The impugned

¶17

3 wp6574

¶18

order as well as the record show that a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 15th July 2002
calling upon the petitioner to file a
reply/objection to the Vigilance Cell's report. The
first date of hearing was fixed on 7th August 2002
vide notice dated 26th July 2002 as recorded in the
impugned order. The impugned order also records that
an application for adjournment was made by the
petitioner on that day on the ground of illness. It
records the Government Resolution dated 19th February
2002 directs that the cases regarding election
should be decided within 45 days and, therefore, it
was decided that no adjournment can be granted by
the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner. We
have perused a copy of Vigilance Cell's report
tendered on record. The Vigilance Cell appears to
have conducted a detailed enquiry, statements of the
mother of the petitioner and others have been
recorded. [Moreover, the Service Discharge
certificate of Shri S.G.Jakkal to which a reference
has been made in the impugned order has not been
taken into consideration by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee.

¶19

5We must note here that the hearing was
concluded on 7th August 2002 and the impugned order
has been passed on 8th October 2002. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee could have always granted a
reasonable time of even two days to the petitioner
on the basis of adjournment application in which
time was sought on the ground of illness.

¶20

4 wp6574

¶21

6We have perused the finding of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the findings
are against the petitioner. However, this is a case
where even a reasonable opportunity of being heard
has been denied by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
The petitioner had right to appear before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee and to make oral submissions as
regards the Vigilance Cell Report and on each and
every document placed on record. The said
opportunity has been denied to the petitioner. As
stated earlier, even time of two or three days
could have always been granted to the petitioner on
the ground of illness.

¶22

7Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be
set aside and fresh enquiry will have to be ordered
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶23

8 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶24

(I)The impugned order dated 8th October 2002 is
hereby quashed and set aside and the matter of
verification of the caste claim of the
petitioner is remanded to the second
respondent;

¶25

(II)We direct the petitioner to appear before
the second respondent-committee on 22nd December
2014 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner shall
produce an authenticated copy of this order;

¶26

(III)It will be open for the petitioner to file
his reply to the Vigilance Cell Report within a
period of two weeks from 22nd December 2014. No

¶27

wp6574

¶28

¶29

further time shall be granted to the petitioner
to file reply to the Vigilance Cell Report;

¶30

(IV) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible;

¶31

(V) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the impugned order and that the impugned order has been set aside only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice;

¶32

(VI) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms;

¶33

(VII) Second respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

(A.S.GADKARI,J.)

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shakeel Sultan and Ors. Vs Nandgaon Municipal Council, through Chief Officer and Ors.

M/S. Vertex Spinning Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

The Collector of Thane and Ors. Vs Sangharsh Kriti Seva Samiti and Ors.

Kiran Piraji Nangare Vs Paras Bhomraj Oswal and Ors.

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. Vs Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.