Quashed

Bhupendra Jaywant Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2015WP/3182/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a caste certificate validation by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The High Court held the certification order was vitiated because the supporting Vigilance Cell report failed to physically verify school records as required by law. The matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25 January 2012 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.3, Bandra, Mumbai for a fresh vigilance enquiry and future hearing.

Bhupendra Jaywant Mahale Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

wp3182

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.3182 OF 2012

¶5

Bhupendra Jaywant Mahale ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar a/w Ms Helan Koli-Mandlik for the
Petitioner

¶8

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Vaibhav
Gaikwad i/b Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondent No.4

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.
 DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT: (A.S.OKA,J.)

¶11

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the
learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4

¶12

2By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged
the Judgment and Order dated 25th January 2012 passed
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee (second respondent).
By the said Judgment and Order, the caste claim of
the respondent No.4 that he belongs to caste
`Momin' which is notified as `Other Backward Class'
was upheld. By the said order, the caste
certificate dated 5th October 2011 issued by the
Competent Authority to the said respondent has been
validated.

¶13

2 wp3182

¶14

3The learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the Judgment and order dated 4th May 2012 passed
by this Court in Writ Petition No.853 of 2012 and
other connected matters. He urged that the
constitution of the second respondent-Caste Scrutiny
Committee is itself illegal.

¶15

4Secondly, he invited our attention to the
report of the Vigilance Cell dated 31st December
2011. He also invited our attention to the
information sought by the petitioner under Right to
Information Act,2005. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the Vigilance
Cell has purported to verify the School Leaving
Certificate issued to the father and uncle of the
respondent No.4 by the school in District Allahabad
without actually visiting the school. His
submission is that the Vigilance Cell Officer has
purported to hold an enquiry sitting in Mumbai
without verification of the original record of the
school. The learned senior counsel for the
respondent No.4 supported the impugned Judgment and
order. He urged that as far as Judgment and Order
dated 4th May 2012 in Writ Petition No.853 of 2012 is
concerned, the stay granted by this Court to the
Judgment has been continued by the Apex Court and
the same continues to operate as of today.

¶16

5We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the impugned order. In
the impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has
relied upon the entries of father and uncle of the

¶17

3 wp3182

¶18

respondent No.4 in the school record of a school in
District Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. The Committee
has relied upon the said entries which show that the
caste of both of them is “Momin Islam”. We have
perused the Vigilance Cell report. The Vigilance
Cell report refers to the school Leaving
Certificates of the father and the uncle of the
respondent No.4 issued by a school in District
Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. Perusal of the report
shows that the Vigilance Cell has relied upon only
the information furnished by the Head Master of the
concerned school and the original record of the
school has not been verified by any Officer of the
Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell report itself
does not record that by visiting the concerned
school, any verification was made by the Vigilance
Cell Officer. The information furnished to the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act,2005
shows that the Vigilance Cell Officer did not visit
the concerned school for verification of the school
record. Even the report of the Vigilance Cell does
not record that any of its Officer personally
verified the record of the school. The learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment
and order dated 15th October 2012 of this Court in
Writ Petition No.2025 of 2012. Paragraph 6 of the
said Judgment and order reads thus:

¶19

“6The fact that the Vigilance Cell did not
physically verify the register containing
entry in Form 14 is not in serious dispute.
The inaction by the Vigilance Cell is in

¶20

4 wp3182

¶21

teeth of the decision of the Apex Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Department & Others
(1994) 6 SCC 241, paragraph 12 clause 5
thereof, which requires the Vigilance Cell to
personally inspect all the records, much
less, the disputed and doubtful entries and
enquire into those matters before giving any
opinion to the Scrutiny Committee. That has
not been done in the present case. As the
opinion of the Scrutiny Committee is founded
on such infirm Vigilance Cell Report, we have
no manner of doubt that the conclusion so
reached by the Scrutiny Committee cannot
stand.”

¶22

(Underline supplied)

¶23

6We find from the impugned order dated 25th
January 2012 that the Caste Scrutiny Committee while
passing the impugned order has relied upon the
report of the Vigilance Cell. That is how the
impugned order is vitiated and, therefore, by
setting aside the impugned order, the matter will
have to be remanded to the appropriate Caste
Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel for the
petitioner states that now the proper Caste Scrutiny
Committee is the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
No.3, Mumbai Suburban District having its office at
Bandra (E), Mumbai.

¶24

7Hence, we pass the following order:

¶25

5 wp3182

¶26

(I) The impugned order dated 25^th January 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.3, Bandra, Mumbai;

¶27

(II) We direct the petitioner and the respondent No.4 to appear before the said Committee on Monday 5^th October 2015 at 11.00 a.m for fixing the schedule of hearing;

¶28

(III) In view of what is held in this Judgment, the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall order a fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry in accordance with law;

¶29

(IV) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall endeavour to decide the caste claim of the respondent No.4 as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31^st March 2015;

¶30

(V) We make it clear that no adjudication has been made on merits of the caste claim of the respondent No.4;

¶31

(VI) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs;

¶32

(VII) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this Judgment and order.

¶33

wp3182

¶34

¶35

CERTIFICATE

¶36

Certified to be true and correct copy of original
signed Judgment/Order.

Bhupendra Jaywant Mahale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Jaywant Mahale 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

Shri. Dattatraya Babu Shewale and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Shrikant Shivappa Ghugare and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Attar Naziya Zakir Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justie and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Bhupal Akiwate Vs Liquidator, the Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Rameshbhai Purshottamdas Mehta Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Patel and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others