Bombay High Court
Shri Babasaheb Tukaram Hargude vs Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 30 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp4020.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4020 OF 2016
Babasaheb Tukaram Hargude,
Aged 31 years, Occ. Agrilst.,
residing at Keshnand Gaothan
Derevasti Taluka Haveli,
Distt. Pune. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.2, Akola
through its Member
Secretary, Amravati Division,
Committee, No.2, Akola.
2. Dipali Tukaram Kamthe,
@ Sau. Dipali Narayan
Hargude, Aged 26 years, Occ.
Agrilst., r/o. Keshnand
Gaothan, Derevasti
Taluka Haveli, Distt.Pune. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2016 00:43:53 :::
2 wp4020.16.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.A.M.Gordey, Sr.Cl. with Mr.Rahul Alone, Adv.
and Mr.Deepak Borkar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms Ritu Kaliya, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.M.Ghare, Adv. for Respondent no.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI
AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
ig DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. GAVAI, J) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
by consent.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the Validity Certificate issued in favour of
respondent no.2 by respondent no.1 certifying that she
belongs to 'Kunbhi' caste, which is notified as Other
Backward Class.
3 wp4020.16.odt
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
Validity Certificate is issued without following the mandate
of holding an inquiry through Vigilance Cell.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mangesh Nivtutti Kashid and Others .vs. The District
Collector, Satara and Others reported in (2012) 5
ALLMR 759 has held thus :
"Thus even if the State Government enacts a
procedure to replace the directions contained in
Madhuri Patil's case, the procedure cannot
dispense with the core requirement of obtaining
vigilance cell report. If such a procedure is
enacted by the State, it cannot be termed as
'proper' procedure as contemplated by the Act. It
is emphasised at the cost of repetition that the
directions issued in the Madhuri Patil's case
cannot be viewed with pedantic approach and
must be understood and employed in its true
sense and spirit. The said directions are issued for
the protection of the weaker section in the country
and they must be employed strictly. In other
words, these directions are the least the State
Governments are expected to incorporate while
4 wp4020.16.odt
framing a law on the subject. If the States want to
employ additional safeguards to protect the rights
of the backward class they are permitted to do so
but it is doubtful that the State Government can
prescribe a procedure of lower standards of
scrutiny than the one laid down in the case of
Madhuri Patil. This requirement is emphasised in
the decision of Dayaram. "
5.
It could thus be clearly seen that the Division
Bench in unequivocal terms has held that when the State
Government enacts a procedure to replace the directions
contained in Madhuri Patil's case, the procedure cannot
dispense with the core requirement of obtaining vigilance
cell report.
6. In that view of the matter, the Validity
Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.2 without
holding Vigilance Cell inquiry would not be sustainable in
law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The Validity
Certificate dt.18.11.2015 issued in favour of respondent
no.2 is quashed and set aside.
5 wp4020.16.odt
7. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.1
for considering the claim of respondent no.2 afresh and in
accordance with law. Needless to state that respondent
no.1 shall follow the mandate of inquiry by the Vigilance
Cell before passing any order.
8. Taking into consideration that respondent no.2
is holding electoral Office on the basis of her claim of
belonging to Other Backward Class, the respondent/
Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter within a period
of three weeks from today.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
6 wp4020.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : Jaiswal, P.S. Uploaded on : 31.8.2016
