Bombay High Court
Latika Yosef Ohal @ Latika Petras ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 July, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
55-wp7387-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
55 WRIT PETITION NO. 7387 OF 2014
WITH CA/12938/2014 IN WP/7387/2014
Smt. Latika d/o Yosef Ohal @ ... Petitioner
Smt. Latika w/o Petras Boarde
Age 56 years, Occu; Service,
R/o Quarter No.34, Mahatma
Phule Agricultural University,
Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist.
Ahmednagar.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Divisional Committee for
Verification of Caste
Certificates No.1, Nashik
Division, Nashim, Through its
Secretary.
3. The Tahsildar/Taluka Executive
Magistrate,Taluka Rahuri
District Ahmednagar.
4. Mahatma Phule Agricultural ... Respondents
University, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri
District Ahmednagar,
Through its Registrar.
Mr. Avinash S. Londhe, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kangane, AGP for the Respondents-State.
Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.4,
CORAM : R. M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 25th July, 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
55-wp7387-16.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the
petition is heard for final disposal by the consent of
learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The petitioner is objecting to the order passed
by Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee directing
invalidation of caste certificate issued to the
petitioner of her belonging to 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste.
The Committee had directed invalidation of caste
certificate issued to the petitioner by an order dated
03.02.2014. The petitioner contends that she received
the vigilance cell report only on 26.12.2013, on the
date prescribed for appearance of the petitioner before
the committee, and thereafter no date was prescribed in
the matter. The committee proceeded to pronounce the
judgment on 03.02.2014 without extending an opportunity
to the petitioner to substantiate her claim.
4. Rule 17(11)(i) of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, provides that in such of
those cases which are referred to vigilance cell, upon
considering the report of Vigilance Cell, if the
55-wp7387-16.odt
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the claim of
the applicant, it shall call upon the applicant to
prove his/her caste claim by discharging his/her burden
as contemplated under section 8 of the Act,2000 by
issuing a notice in Form-25 coupled with copy of
report of Vigilance Inquiry. Sub Rule 11(ii) of Rule 17
provides that after issuance of notice, if applicant
requests, by way of written application, for copies of
the vigilance inquiry report or any other document or
prays for adjournment, reasonable time for final
hearing or for submitting written submission it may be
granted.
5. In the instant matter though the original record
produced by the Scrutiny Committee contains the office
copies of notice in Form No. 25 and also records
particulars in respect of prescription of the date of
hearing, there is nothing on record to indicate that
the petitioner has actually received those notices and
the copy of the vigilance cell report. The contentions
raised by the petitioner that she received the
vigilance cell report only on 26.12.2013 and thereafter
no date was prescribed in the matter and the Scrutiny
Committee proceeded to pronounce the result appears to
be correct. The Roznama of the proceedings does not
55-wp7387-16.odt
indicate prescription of any dates such as 15.11.2013
or 17.09.2013. Record of the Scrutiny Committee bears
the Roznama of 26.12.2013 alone. It does not appear
that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 18 of the
Rules of 2012 have been adhered to. The contention of
the petitioner that only on the date prescribed for
hearing of the matter i.e. 26.12.2013, she received the
vigilance cell report and thereafter no date was
prescribed in the matter either for tendering her
explanation to the vigilance cell report or for
recording of her evidence appears to be correct. Since
the petitioner has not been extended an opportunity
to substantiate her claim and tender her explanation in
respect of the vigilance cell inquiry report, the final
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated.
Writ petition therefore deserves to be allowed and the
same is accordingly allowed.
6. The order impugned in this petition passed by
the Scrutiny Committee on 03.02.2014, directing
invalidation of the caste certificate issued to the
petitioner, is quashed and set aside.
7. The petitioner shall tender her explanation to
the report of the vigilance cell enquiry by 12th
55-wp7387-16.odt
August, 2016. The Scrutiny Committee shall thereafter,
permit the petitioner to tender evidence for
substantiating her claim. The Scrutiny Committee shall,
in observance of the procedure prescribed under the
Rules, take fresh decision in the matter as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of
four months from today.
8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall
be no order as to costs.
9. In view of disposal the writ petition, pending
civil application does not survive and stand disposed
of.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )
JPC
