Anant Atmaram Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1395 Bom

                                                909 WP 2787 OF 2022.doc



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2022


  Anant Atmaram Wagh                                  ...Petitioner
        Versus
  The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.                   ...Respondents

                                ---------
 Mr.Vivek V. Salunke, for Petitioner.
 Mrs.Neha Bhide, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4.
 Mr.P.D. Dalvi, for Respondent No.3/Original Complainant.
                                ---------

                                   CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                           M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATED : 9th FEBRUARY, 2023

P.C. :

1. Rule. Mrs.Bhide, 'B' Panel Counsel waives service for

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel waives

service for Respondent No.3/Original Complainant. Rule is made

returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is

taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the Petitioner who is elected as a member of village

panchayat, is seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash

and set aside order dated 25.01.2022 passed by Respondent

No.2 (District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee), Raigad.

909 WP 2787 OF 2022.doc

3. There are various grounds raised for challenging the

impugned order, however, learned counsel for the Petitioner has

specifically invited our attention to the ground being in the

petition, where it is the case of the Petitioner that when he had

attended a hearing before the Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee on 05.01.2021, only two members of the Committee

had presided over and conducted the hearing. Thus, according

to the Petitioner, three members committee had not assembled

heard and decided the validity as required under the law. In

support of his contention, the Petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the matter of Karan M. Bahure V. State

of Maharashtra and Ors.1 wherein identical set of facts were

considered by this Court and the decision rendered by the

Scrutiny Committee without having sufficient number of

members, was set aside.

4. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of

the Respondent-State. In para 16 of the said affidavit dated

08.02.2023 it is stated by the Research Officer, District Caste

Scrutiny Committee, Raigad that, the third Committee member

also conducted the hearing but since he was having an

1 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4232

909 WP 2787 OF 2022.doc

Additional Charge of post of Research Officer & Member

Secretary of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, he joined

the other two members "afterwards".

5. We inquired with Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for

the Complainant/Respondent No.3 as to what are his

instructions about the number of members that were present in

the Caste Scrutiny Committee during the hearing of Petitioner's

case. He he expressed his inability to comment anything

positively.

6. In view of the stand taken by the Respondent-State which

shows that the Caste Scrutiny Committee of three members had

not heard the Petitioner's case and still the impugned order was

passed, in our view, the facts of the present case are squarely

covered by our judgment in the matter between Karan M.

Bahure V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Surpa). In the said

judgment it is already held that under Rule 18 of the

Maharashtra, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes, De-notified

Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, three members are

909 WP 2787 OF 2022.doc

required to render the hearing while deciding caste validity

certificate and not by less than three members. The said

provision is mandatory and not directory.

7. In that view that matter, the impugned order cannot be

sustained and therefore, we pass following order:

(a) The impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by

Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The case of the

Petitioner's caste certificate validity is restored to the file of

Respondent No.2 for consideration in accordance with law. The

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the

Petitioner's caste certificate validity within three months from

15.02.2023 without being influenced by the observations made

in the impugned Order dated 25.01.2022.

(b) The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 are directed to

appear before the Respondent No.2 on 15th February, 2023 and

no formal notice to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is

required.

(c) In view of the fact that the impugned Order is set aside,

the subsequent action initiated by the Collector, Raigad based on

909 WP 2787 OF 2022.doc

the impugned Order, cannot be allowed to be continued. In that

view of the matter, the Collector, Raigad is directed not to

proceed, as per the latest notice dated 11.01.2023 issued to the

Petitioner.

(d) If the Order that would be passed by the Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee is adverse to the Petitioner, no coercive

action shall be taken for a period of two weeks from the date of

such decision.

8. The writ petition is disposed off and Rule is made absolute

in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

9. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

order.

 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)                              (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)