Remanded

Santosh Balasaheb Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2016WP/5685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that the Respondent No. 2 Committee failed to record reasons for discarding the Vigilance Cell report while invalidating the petitioner's caste certificate. The impugned order was quashed for non-compliance with Rule 17 Sub-Rule 7 of the 2012 Rules, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Respondent No. 2 for fresh order within 6 weeks after recording reasons as required by law.

Santosh Balasaheb Gaikwad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.5685/2016

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5685 OF 2016

¶6

Santosh Balasaheb Gaikwad Age : 38 years, Occ. Councilor R/o – 1869, B-Ward, Vare Vasahat, Mangalwar Peth, Kolhapur, District : Kolhapur .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar 2^nd floor, Vichare Mal, District : Kolhapur.

¶10

Haridas Ramchandra Sonavane Age – Major, Occupation: Business, R/o. 672, C-Ward, Raviwar Peth, Kolhapur.

¶11

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. KMC Building, 'C' Ward, Bhausingji Road, Kolhapur – 416001.]

¶12

State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Opp: Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents

¶13

WP.5685/2016

¶14

¶15

Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Government Pleader a/w Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP a/w Ms.Tintina Hazarika, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr.A.M. Adgule, for Respondent No.4 Ms. Shriya Gadhav i/b. Mr. S.B. Shetye, Advocate for Respondent No.5

¶16

CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &

¶17

M.S.KARNIK, JJ. RESERVED ON : 4^th AUGUST, 2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 2^nd SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶18

ORDER: (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶19

The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 3^rd May,

¶20

2016 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur whereby the caste certificate bearing No. MAG-SR.3274/95 mentioning caste of the Petitioner as “Mang” which is recognized scheduled caste was invalidated.

¶21

In the General Elections of the Respondent No.4 Kolhapur Municipal Corporation held in October / November, 2015, Ward No.58 was reserved for Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner was elected in the said Election as Councilor,

¶22

WP.5685/2016

¶23

¶24

whereas the Respondent No.3 stood second.

¶25

The Petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the Respondent No.2 Committee for verification of his caste claim. The Respondent No.2 Committee sent the documents submitted by the Petitioner to the Vigilance Cell for conducting a local inquiry. The Vigilance Cell conducted the local inquiry and also recorded the statements of senior citizens who are acquainted with the Petitioner's family. The Vigilance Cell report favoured the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 Committee was not in agreement with the findings of the Vigilance Cell Report and therefore, called upon the Petitioner to submit say on the said objection raised by the Respondent No.2.

¶26

After hearing the Petitioner and also the Respondent No.3 Objector the Respondent No.2 Committee was pleased to invalidate the caste claim of the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2016.

¶27

WP.5685/2016

¶28

¶29

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as

¶30

well as learned Counsels for the Respondents at length. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the Vigilance Cell Report, which is at Exhibit-B and also taken us through the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2016. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Respondent No.2 Committee has not at all adverted to the Vigilance Cell Report and disagreed with the same without giving any reasons. It is further submitted that there was nothing incriminating found against the Petitioner during the local inquiry and even the statements of the senior citizens from the Petitioner's native village were recorded, wherein it is categorically stated that the Petitioner belongs to the “Mang” caste.

¶31

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the documents submitted by the Respondent No.3 Objector ought not to have been relied upon as the same were taken into consideration without even calling for a report of the

¶32

WP.5685/2016

¶33

¶34

Vigilance Cell of these documents. The Commitee was further in error in raising the objection about residency of the Petitioner in as much as the Vigilance Cell never raised this objection while conducting the local inquiry and that the Petitioner was not given any opportunity to prove his residence prior to the deemed date. According to the Petitioner he is not in possession of old documents as the Petitioner's father was admitted to the Hostel at a very young age due to financial constraints and further at that time due to poverty nobody from his family could study and for these reasons also there are no documents to show his residence in his village.

¶35

On the other hand, the Respondents supported the findings and the order passed by the Respondent No.2 Committee. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents the order passed by the Respondent No.2 Committee is a well reasoned order based upon consideration

¶36

of the entire material on record. The Petitioner has not produced any old documents on record to establish his caste

¶37

WP.5685/2016

¶38

¶39

claim. According to the Respondents the Vigilance Cell inquiry is meant only for internal assistance of the Scrutiny Committee and adjudication of caste status is the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee. Further, a finding recorded by the Vigilance Cell is not binding on the Scrutiny Committee as Vigilance Cell inquiry is meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee nor can it be used as evidence in support of the claim.

¶40

Having considered the rival submissions, one of the issue raised in the present Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2016. The provisions of sub-Rule 7 of Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 212' for short) casts a duty on the Scrutiny Committee to record its reasons for discarding the report of Vigilance Cell.

¶41

WP.5685/2016

¶42

¶43

In the impugned order the Respondent No.2 Committee

¶44

except for stating that it is not in agreement with the Vigilance Cell Report for the reason that the Petitioner's father's caste certificate in the service record is shown as “Maratha”, has not given any reason to discard the said report of the Vigilance Cell.

¶45

We find that the Respondent No.2 Committee has

¶46

not at all adverted to the report of the Vigilance Cell. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to Respondent No.2 – Committee for a fresh consideration of the caste claim. The Committee may pass a fresh order on its own merits after complying with the provisions of the Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 17 of the said Rules of 2012. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the order passed by respondent No. 2 as we are setting aside the impugned order only on the ground of non compliance of the provision of Sub-Rule 17 of Rule 17 before discarding the report of the Vigilance Cell.

¶47

¶48

WP.5685/2016

¶49

The Committee will decide the matter afresh on it its own

¶50

merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

The impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2016 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.

¶53

The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶56

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Santosh Balasaheb Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Balasaheb Gaikwad 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

Keshav Sakharam Utekar Vs State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Aftab Alam Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smt. Jaibunissa Safdarali Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs the Executive Engineer, M.B.R. and R. B. and 2 Ors.

Shri. Kailas Shankar Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Secretary and Anr.

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.