Bombay High Court
Raju Shamrao Mankar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 28 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
ssm 1 50-wp325.15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2015
Raju Shamrao Mankar
Age 46 years., Occu. Social Work
Permanent Resident of Boda
Nagar, Near Arjun Nagar, Amravati,
District Amravati.
Presently residing at C/o. Nitin
Balkrushna Naik, 12, Parera
Compound, Rajendra Nagar,
Near Nalanda School, Borivali (East),
Mumbai-400 066. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1 State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Ministry of Social
Justice and Special Assistance,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2 Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.3, Bandra, Mumbai,
Konkan (Mumbai Division)
through its Member-Secretary/
Research Officer.
3 Miss. Navneet Kaur
Harbhajansingh Kundles,
Resident of Room No.600/C,
Marathwada Chawl, Hill No.2,
Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar (W),
Mumbai-400086.
4 Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2017 23:59:14 :::
ssm 2 50-wp325.15.sxw
5 Chief Election Officer, General
Administration Department,
Madam Cama Road, Hutatma
Rajguru Square, Mumbai-400032. ....Respondents.
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Pramod G. Kathane & Mr.
Narayan Phadnis for the Petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5-State.
Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Mohammad Shah Alam
Khan for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 28 JUNE 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER- B.R. GAVAI, J.):-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent.
2 The Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved
by order dated 25 September 2013, granted in favour of Respondent
No.3 certifying that she belongs to Mochi Scheduled Caste. It appears
that during the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioner has also made
a complaint before the Respondent Scrutiny Committee and the said
complaint came to be rejected vide order dated 5 February 2016. By
way of an amendment, the said order is also challenged.
ssm 3 50-wp325.15.sxw
3 Mr. Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner submits that, the perusal of the documents
would reveal that Respondent No.3 has been granted validity
certificate even before she had applied for the same. He further
submits that, Respondent No.3 has relied on the documents issued in
favour of her father by a school in the year 1958, which school was
not in existence, at that point of time. The learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the certificate is granted in favour of Respondent
No.3, without even holding an inquiry through Vigilance Cell.
Therefore, he submits that, the impugned order is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
4 Ms. Shastri, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the
State Government submits that, the Scrutiny Committee has power,
under Rule 17(6) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Denotified
Tribes (Vimuktajati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class and
Special Backward Category Regulation and Issuance of Verification of
Caste Certificate Rules 2012, to grant validity certificate, without
undertaking any inquiry through Vigilance Cell, if the Committee is
ssm 4 50-wp325.15.sxw
satisfied that the candidate, upon the documents placed before it, is
belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
5 Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior counsel appearing
for Respondent No.3 on the contrary, submits that, as a matter of fact,
the Petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee by filing a
complaint however, he remained absent on various dates and as such,
order dated 5 February 2016 came to be passed by the Scrutiny
Committee. He further submits that the Petitioner has no locus in the
present matter.
6 In so far as the issue of locus is concerned, the Apex Court
has held that the issue regarding locus cannot be restricted in the
matter, regarding a status of a Caste and Tribe. It has been held that,
if a candidate claims a status of a particular reserved category, though
he or she is not entitled to that, a citizen would be entitled to knock
the door of the Court and seek redressal. In that view of the matter,
we find no substance in the preliminary objection and reject the
same.
ssm 5 50-wp325.15.sxw
7 Insofar as the submission made by the learned AGP that,
the Committee has power to grant validity certificate without
undertaking an inquiry through Vigilance Cell is concerned, no doubt
that such a power exists on the statute. However, it may not be out of
place to mention that day in and day out, we come across various
cases, wherein the Scrutiny Committee denies the validity certificate
to a daughter even when, the validity certificate is granted to the
father, on the ground that the daughter has failed the inquiry through
the Vigilance Cell. We fail to understand as to how, in the present
case, the Scrutiny Committee has been magnanimous enough to
accept the contention of Respondent No.3 that, she belongs to the
Scheduled Caste, as being ipse dixit, without there being a single
validity in favour of her close relatives. To say the least, we find that
the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee in granting the
validity certificate in favour of Respondent No.3, without even
undertaking Vigilance Cell inquiry, is completely extraordinary.
8 In any case, we find that, since the validity certificate
granted in favour of Respondent No.3 has been granted without
following the procedure as prescribed by law i.e. without calling for
ssm 6 50-wp325.15.sxw
the report of Vigilance cell, the same is not sustainable in law. We
therefore, quash and set aside the same. We direct the Respondent
Scrutiny Committee which is seized with the matter to give an
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as, the Respondent
No.3 and also give an opportunity to the parties to place all the
relevant documents in support of their respective claims and to take
decision in accordance with law.
9 We are informed that the Vigilance Cell inquiry has already
been conducted twice. The parties would also be at liberty to submit
their objections to the Vigilance Cell enquiry, if they so desire.
10 Needless to state that if the Scrutiny Committee finds that
any further Vigilance Cell inquiry is required to be conducted, the
same shall be done.
11 The parties to remain present before the Scrutiny
Committee on 10 July 2017, and the Scrutiny Committee shall
proceed with the matter expeditiously.
ssm 7 50-wp325.15.sxw
12 The Scrutiny Committee shall conclude the proceedings
before it, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period
of three months from today. It is made clear that no unnecessary
adjournment would be granted to either of the parties and the
Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to draw an adverse inference,
if any of the parties indulge into such delaying tactics.
13 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
14 There shall be no order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
