Bombay High Court
Sheikh Siddique Sheikh Mehamood vs District Caste Certificate ... on 11 October, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
285-WP6282.17.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6282 OF 2017
PETITIONER : Sheikh Siddique Sheikh Mehamood, Aged
about 32 years, Occu : Labour, R/o Dr.
Rajendraprasad Ward, Umerkhed, Tah.
Umerkhed, Distt. Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS : 1. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal, Through its Member Secretary.
2. The Collector, Yavatmal, Bangar Nagar,
Yavatmal.
3. Municipal Council, Umerkhed, Distt.
Yavatmal, Through its Chief Officer.
4. Jalil Ahmad Sheikh Usmal, Aged about 31
years, Occu.:Member, Nagar Parishad,
Umerkhed, R/o. Tq. Umerkhed, Distt.
Yavatmal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Abdul Subhan, counsel h/f Mr. F.T.Mirza, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
Mr.Rohit Joshi, counsel for respondent No.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 11.10.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
KAVITA
285-WP6282.17.odt
Heard.
2. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.4 that the paragraphs 2 and 8 are worded in a manner as to incorporate
not only the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and respondent
No.4 and also the consideration and the conclusions drawn by the Scrutiny
Committee, we beg to differ with him. As rightly submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, there is no consideration whatsoever of the
submissions which are reproduced in paragraphs 2 and 3. The
reproduction of submissions in these paragraphs is not in the words
expected from a quasi judicial authority like the respondent No.1-
Committee. But, on making overall reading of what is mentioned in these
paragraphs, one cannot but say that the contents of these paragraphs are
nothing but the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, i.e.
petitioner and respondent No.4 and then we find that in the subsequent
paragraphs, straightaway conclusion has been drawn by the respondent
No.1-Committee, without appreciating the rival submissions.
3. Thus, the discussion so made in the earlier paragraph impels us to
conclude that because of non-consideration of the submissions made on
behalf of the rival parties and also the documents placed on record, the
KAVITA
285-WP6282.17.odt
impugned order suffers from the vice of perversity, in the sense that it does
not consider in any manner the evidence and material available on record.
Therefore, this is a fit case for its remand to the Scrutiny Committee for
fresh consideration and decision.
4. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration and decision, in accordance
with law. The respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee is at liberty to
consider the evidence already available on record and also admit the
additional evidence if produced by the petitioner or respondent No.4 or
both. The respondent No.1 shall decide the claim of the respondent No.4
at the earliest and in any case within three months from the date of
appearance of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 before him. The
petitioner and the respondent No.4 shall appear before the respondent
No.1-Scrutiny Committee on 07/11/2022.
5. Rule accordingly. No costs.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)
Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN
TAYADE
P. A.
Signing Date:11.10.2022 18:40
KAVITA
