Quashed

Sopan Abbasaheb Banger v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016WP/6520/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an unreasoned validation order for a caste certificate issued under the 2012 Act. It remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration following proper enquiry and deemed fresh investigation by the Vigilance Cell.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.03.2015 quashed; matter remitted to Scrutiny Committee within eight months; Vigilance Cell directed to conduct fresh enquiry.

Sopan Abbasaheb Banger Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 45-wp6520.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6520 OF 2016

¶4

Sopan s/o. Abbasaheb Bangar,
Age : 53 years, Occ. Service,
r/o. N-6, M-2 14/4,
SinhgadColony, Aurangabad..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶7

2. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (through its Chairman/Member Secretary)

¶8

3. The Collector, Aurangabad

¶9

4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patoda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.

¶10

5. Abdul Rahim Hanif Shaikh, Age:44 years, Occ.Business, r/o. House No.18-25-136, Chishtiya Colony, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad ..Respondents

¶11

2 45-wp6520.odt

¶12

Mr.V.A.Dhakne, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.K.D.Mundhe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4
Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶13

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2016

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2.Rule. With consent of the parties, taken
up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The petitioner is objecting to the

¶18

validation certificate issued in favour of respondent no.5 certifying that he belongs to ' Naikwadi ' caste, which is recognised as a Vimukta Jati(A) category.

¶19

4.Respondent no.5 is in receipt of the

¶20

caste certificate issued by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to ' Naikwadi ' caste. The caste certificate issued to respondent

¶21

no.5 was referred to respondent no.2 – Scrutiny

¶22

Committee. The proposal was received by respondent

¶23

3 45-wp6520.odt

¶24

no.2 – Scrutiny Committee on 10.03.2015. The

¶25

validation certificate has been issued in favour
of respondent no.5 by respondent no.2 – Scrutiny
Committee on 31.03.2015.

¶26

5.We have perused the order passed by
respondent no.2 – Scrutiny Committee. Respondent
no.2 – Scrutiny Committee has not recorded any

¶27

reason in support of the conclusions drawn and has
issued the validation certificate in favour of
respondent no.5 by dispensing with the enquiry by

¶28

the vigilance cell. In view of Rule 17(6) of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

¶29

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2012, it
is open for the Scrutiny Commtitee to dispense

¶30

with enquiry by the Vigilence Cell, if the
applicant is in a position to support his claim by
production of the relevant record.

¶31

4 45-wp6520.odt

¶32

6.In the instant matter, the record
produced by respondent no.5 in support of his

¶33

claim prima facie does not appear to be sufficient to dispense with the enquiry by the Vigilance Cell and to issue the validity certificate forthwith without embarking upon a detailed enquiry.

¶34

7.We have refrained ourselves from making
any comment on the claim of respondent no.5 and
leave it open to respondent no.2 to scrutinies the
proposal afresh and issue appropriate order in
observance of the provisions prescribed under the
relevant Act and Rules. Respondent no.2 - Scrutiny
Committee, in fact, had referred the matter to the
Vigilance Cell on 17.03.2015 and the report of the
Vigilance Cell dated 24.03.2015 appears to have
been tendered to the Scrutiny Committee. The
Scrutiny Committee, however, while issuing the
order on 31.03.2015 has recorded that the enquiry
by the Vigilance Cell is dispensed with. The order

¶35

5 45-wp6520.odt

¶36

appears to have been passed by the Scrutiny
Committee without application of mind.

¶37

8.On perusal of the report of the Vigilance
Cell dated 24.03.2015, it appears that the
Vigilance Cell did not have any access to the
relevant original record to verify the correctness
of the documentary evidence/copies of the original
record produced by respondent no.5 before the
Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell appears to

¶38

have tendered the report in a hurried manner
without holding proper enquiry. In the

¶39

circumstances, it is desirable to direct the
Vigilance Cell to conduct a fresh enquiry in the
matter and submit a report to the Scrutiny
Committee.

¶40

9. It is well settled that the Scrutiny
Committee, while directing issuance of validation
certificate, is required to record reasons in
support of the conclusions drawn in the matter.

¶41

6 45-wp6520.odt

¶42

10. In the identical facts and circumstances,
this Court, while dealing with Writ Petition

¶43

No.301 of 2015 in the matter of Gopal s/o

¶44

Satrajeet Barbure vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶45

others, decided on 21st October 2015, directed
quashment of the validation order which was
unreasoned one and further mandated the Scrutiny
Committee to reconsider the claim of validation of

¶46

the caste certificate in observance of the
procedure prescribed under the law. The course
that has been adopted in the matter of Gopal s/o
Satrajeet Burbure (supra), needs to be adopted in
the instant matter.

¶47

11.In the fact and circumstances of the

¶48

case, the order dated 31.03.2015 issued by

¶49

respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee directing
validation of the caste certificate issued to

¶50

respondent no.5, is quashed and set aside. The
matter stands remitted back to respondent no.2 –

¶51

7 45-wp6520.odt

¶52

ScrutinyCommitteeforreconsideration.

¶53

Respondent no.2 shall, in observance of the

¶54

procedure prescribed under the relevant Act and
Rules and after hearing all the parties concerned,

¶55

decide the issue of validation of the caste
certificate issued in favour of respondent no.5,
as expeditiously as possible and preferably,
within a period of eight months from today.

¶56

12.The Vigilance Cell shall conduct a fresh
enquiry in the matter and submit a report to the
Scrutiny Committee.

¶57

13.During pendency and final disposal of the
caste validation proceedings before respondent
no.2 - Scrutiny Committee, no coercive action
shall be taken against respondent no.5 only on the
ground of his failure to tender the validation
certificate.

¶58

8 45-wp6520.odt

¶59

14.Rule is accordingly made absolute in the
above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

 Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶61

kbp

Sopan Abbasaheb Banger v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopan Abbasaheb Banger v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Ashok Bansi Tele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sakharam Bhivaji Athavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jamkhed Audyogik Vasahat Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Its Chairman Satish Pandharinath Shinde Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Udyog Sarthi Andheri through Its CEO and Another

Dinesh Vasant Chavan U/G Vasant Baburao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Narayan Vishwanath Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others