Allowed

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2018WP/556/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted a writ petition challenging a caste validity certificate. The court held that the certificate, based on a cryptic order showing non-application of mind and no recorded reasons, was illegal. It set aside the order, dismissed delay objections, and directed a fresh enquiry by the Committee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order at Exhibit R and caste validity certificate dated 25th January 2012 set aside. Petitioner directed to appear before the Committee. Committee directed to make enquiry and decide the clai

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp556.17.doc

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.556 OF 2017

¶4

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Anr. … Petitioners Vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 4I, 4II, 4III. Mr. Rishin Mantri i/by Mr. S.B. Shetye for the Respondent No.7. Mr. Deepak R. More for the Respondent No.10. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar for the Respondent No.11.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 15^th JUNE 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service.

¶13

2 Parties were put to notice on the earlier date that the petition will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. As per the direction issued on 4^th May 2018, the learned AGP has produced the file of the case. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the caste validity certificate granted by the Divisional Caste Validity Committee No.3, Pune to the 11^th respondent on 25^th January 2012 thereby validating the caste certificate granted to

¶14

1 of 5

¶15

wp556.17.doc

¶16

the 11^th respondent recording that he belongs to Other Backward Class. The main ground of challenge is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has made no enquiry and no findings have been recorded. It is pointed out that the Caste Scrutiny Committee by a cryptic order (Exhibit “R”) running only into six lines validated the caste certificate produced by the 11^th respondent.

¶17

3 The learned counsel appearing for the 11^th respondent does not dispute that the impugned caste validity certificate is granted only on the basis of the order at Exhibit R. However, firstly he objects to the locus of the petitioner and secondly he submits that there is a gross delay. His contention is that in view of gross delay, the writ petition should not be entertained.

¶18

4 We have perused the original record. It appears from the record that there is an entry in the roznama maintained by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that on 23^rd January 2012, the 11^th respondent as well as the complainant Shri Nandkumar Kale were present and their arguments were heard. There is no reference in the roznama about passing of any order on the issue of validity of the caste certificate produced by the 11^th respondent. From the original of the order at Exhibit R which is on the file, it is clear that the date of the order is kept blank. From the record it appears that there is a report submitted

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

wp556.17.doc

¶21

by Vigilance Cell and large number of documents have been annexed to the report. In fact, annexures to the report consist of several documents running into 107 pages. As stated earlier, the impugned order at Exhibit R is a very cryptic order. There is no consideration of even a single document on record. There is no consideration of observations made by the Vigilance Cell in its report and the documents brought on record by the Vigilance Cell. It was the duty of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider each and every document on record and to record at least brief reasons as to why a particular documentary evidence is accepted or a particular documentary evidence is not accepted. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has failed to perform its statutory duty and therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is illegal.

¶22

5 As far as the objection to the locus of the petitioner is concerned, the 11^th respondent is an elected Councilor of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. Paragraph 1 of the petition contains material averments. The second petitioner is residing within the limits of the said Municipal Corporation and is a voter. The 11^th respondent is an elected Councilor of the said Municipal Corporation who got elected by claiming that he belongs to a particular reserved category. Being a voter and a citizen residing within the limits of the said Municipal Corporation, surely the second petitioner has locus to maintain the petition.

¶23

3 of 5

¶24

wp556.17.doc

¶25

6 As regards delay, firstly, we must note here that the impugned order is vitiated by nonapplication of mind and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not recorded any reasons. Secondly, the 11^th respondent has obtained a benefit on the basis of the impugned order by contesting general ward election of a Municipal Corporation on a reserved seat. Thirdly, in paragraph IX, there is an explanation for delay. The petitioners received the documents on 14^th December 2016 and the present petition is lodged in January 2017.

¶26

7 Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the said averments, we do not think that this is a case where writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be thrown out on the ground of delay.

¶27

8 Hence, the petition must succeed and we pass the following

¶28

order :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The impugned order at Exhibit – R and the impugned Caste Validity Certificate dated 25^th January 2012 are hereby set aside only on the ground that the impugned order shows nonapplication of mind and no reasons have been recorded therein. Even on the file, there is no such decision recorded. We direct the 11^th respondent to

¶31

4 of 5

¶32

wp556.17.doc

¶33

appear before the fourth respondent – Committee on 3^rd July 2018 at 11.00 am;

¶34

(ii) The fourth respondent – Committee shall make enquiry in accordance with law. If any additional documents are produced, needless to add that enquiry through vigilance cell will have to be ordered on the basis of the said documents;

¶35

(iii) The fourth respondent – Committee shall endeavour to decide the caste claim as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 29^th September, 2018;

¶36

(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the caste claim of the 11^th respondent and all contentions in that behalf are left open;

¶37

(v) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms.

¶38

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J)

¶39

(A.S. OKA, J)

¶40

5 of 5

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Balasaheb Kisan Kakare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary 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

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube Vs Kaushik More and 3 Ors. (Contemnors) and the Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors. (Respondents)

Bipinchandra Harivallabhdas Shah Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Smt. Kamal Laxman Borole through Her Constituted Attorney Vs State of Maharashtra through Hon'Ble Minister for Town Planning Dept. and Ors.

Mohammed Asim Haji Mohammed Sharif Raine and Anr. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 40 Ors.

Sind Educationists' Association Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Jagrut Mahil Mandal Ngo Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.