Avinash Tulshiram Limje vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Bom) 595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
A.H. Joshi & R.C. Chavan, JJ.
Writ Petition No.903 of 2007 And Writ Petition No.904 of 2007 Writ Petition No.903 of 2007
Avinash Tulshiram Limje Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Advocate Appeared
Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri S.S. Doifode, AGP for Respondents No.1, 3, 5 and 6.
S/Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition
No.903 of 2007, and Shri N.W. Sambre, Advocate for Respondent
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Decided on : 23-4-2007

Headnote:Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Section 8 - Caste/Tribe claim. - Burden lies on candidate alone to take positive step to bring proof and evidence as to caste/tribe claimed by him.
       Once the Scrutiny Committee decide that the candidate should prove his caste/tribe claim it is the candidate alone who has to take positive steps to bring proof and evidence as to caste/tribe claimed by him. The desire that the petitioners should have been afforded opportunity of cross-examination is that thus based on totally erroneous perception of the scheme of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Normadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and even the dictum as laid down in Madhuri Patil ’s case.
       Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 28(3) - Decree for specific performance of agreement for sale of land. - Where payment of purchase money of land is made as per order under decree and relief of possession is claimed, Court can grant such relief.
       As already discussed hereinabove, apparently, Court sees no conflict in the aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Babulal v. M/s. Hazarilal Kishorilal, AIR 1982 SC 818 and Adcon Electronics v. Daulat and another, 2001 (4) Mh LJ (SC) 469. However, both the judgments are by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Honourable Judges. The judgment in the case of Adcon Electronics has not noticed the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Babulal. How- ever, even assuming that there is some conflict, the Full Bench of the Court in a case reported in 1994 Mh LJ 1669. Kamleshku mar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and others and the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case reported in AIR 1981 P&H 213, has taken a view that it is not necessary that a latter judgment of the Apex Court need to be followed and the High Courts could follow the one which in its view is better in point of law. Court finds that the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Babulal, AIR 1982 SC 818 is in accordance with law and therefore, Court is inclined to follow the same.
       That it is travesty of justice that though the decree for specific performance of contract has been passed way back in the year 1988, the respondent plaintiff has not been yet in a position to get the decree executed and get its fruits. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is found without merit and as such it is dismissed.
       At this stage counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that the order of the Court should be stayed f or a further period of 3 months. However taking into consideration the view that Court has taken Court is not inclined to grant such relief.

Judgment

R.C. Chavan, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard, as the petitions can be decided on the basis of contents of the petitions and annexures thereto, and returns filed on record.

2. The petitioners in these two petitions claim that both of them have been elected as Municipal Councillors from Wards No.16 and 18 of Bhandara Municipal Council, reserved for Scheduled Tribe. However, the document at page No.46 in Writ Petition No.903 of 2007 shows that the petitioner therein was Municipal Councillor of Ward No.16, whereas the document at page No.49 in Writ Petition No.904 of 2007 describes the petitioner as Municipal Councillor of Ward No.17, though she has signed as Councillor of Ward No.16.

3. Both the petitioners claim that they belong to Halba (Scheduled Tribe). Their caste claim was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which, by the impugned orders dated 20-2-2007, invalidated their caste claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed these petitions praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and a direction to the Collector not to disqualify the petitioners on the basis of invalidation of their caste claim.

4. We have heard Shri Narnaware, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, who pressed two grounds for challenging the impugned orders of the Caste Scrutiny, namely :-

(i) That the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the Committee did not grant an opportunity to the petitioners to meaningfully participate in the proceedings before it; and

(ii) That the Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as Vigilance Cell were not validly constituted. As to observance of principles of natural justice :

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended as facts leading to first ground that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had listed the petitioners' matter on 20-2-2007 at 4 p.m. when the Committee was not 4 available for hearing. The petitioners and their Advocate were present on 20-2-2007, at 4. p.m. when normally Committee hears the cases. The petitioners' Advocate wanted to file reply and old pre-independence documents, but was informed through a Peon after telephonic conversation between the Peon and the Presiding Officer that the counsel and the petitioners should appear on 21-2-2007 at 11 a.m., but the Committee slapped the petitioners with the orders of invalidation passed on 20-2-2007 itself. The petitioners claim to have informed of these developments by a telegram sent on 21-2-2007.

6. Respondent No.2 Committee has, in its preliminary submissions, countered these contentions. It was stated that the Vice Chairman of the Committee had to leave for official business on 20-2-2007 in the first half, i.e. from 11 a.m., and thereafter he reached his office only at 4.30 p.m. whereafter the hearing of caste scrutiny of caste claims began and was concluded till 7.30 p.m. Respondent No.2 Committee submitted that the petitioners and their Advocate did not turn up for hearing. On behalf of the respondent-Committee, an attendancesheet had been filed at Annexure R-2, which shows that nine other persons were present before the Committee on that day. In view of this, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the principles of natural justice had been violated has to be rejected. We find that the contention is half-hearted inasmuch as the petitioners themselves contend that time granted to the Advocate is usually 4 p.m. Therefore, if the Vice Chairman of the respondent-Committee commenced hearing after 4.30 p.m., the petitioners should not have any grievance.

7. Ordinarily record of a Court proves itself. When the record of the Committee does not indicate any events as alleged by the petitioner, and on the other hand shows that hearing was granted to nine persons, it would be difficult to believe the petitioners' story. There is no reason why the Committee would hear nine others but avoid hearing the petitioners. Further, the petitioners' claim that Peon o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document