Back
2009 Supreme(Bom) 479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. H. JOSHI and A. B. CHAUDHARL, JJ.
MAYURI MANOHAR BENDE
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 317 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 4054 of 2008
Decided On : April 4, 2009
Headnote:Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 - Section 3 - Caste claim - Claim of petitioner that he belongs to scheduled tribe Halba - Scrutiny committee invalidated claim - Ground - Caste suppressed in certificate of grand father - Could not provide proper explanation on entries in record of maternal uncle - Certificate clearly secured by suppressed of past history - Clear case of suppressio vary and suggestio falsi review dismissed. - A certificate secured by suppression of antecedents could stand to the test of a certificate obtained genuinely and bona fide. It is a clear case of suppressio vary and suggestio falsi. The very foundation of petitioner’s claim, namely that cancellation of her certificate and confiscation thereof is on account of a finding of fact as to fraud etc., is, thus, factually correct and very well based on record.
The petitioner’s case does not stand on par with students who have, ’year before’ cancellation of caste/Tribe Status Certificate, completed the course, secured the passing and now what remains is formal act of award of degree. Since most of the judgment cited by Advocate for the petitioner were already before the Bench while deciding the writ petition, those do not require any further and detailed discussion gain. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner stands on extremely fragile footing, as she is not in a position to dispute fact-finding which has reached finality.
Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 - Section 3 - Caste claim - Petitioner completing nearly four years of medical degree - Caste claim challenged - Petitioner’s case not at par with students who have completed course and secured passing - He cannot take benefit of 2006(6) Bom CR 556 SC - Petition not considerable. - No merit in the review application and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( 1 ) RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.
( 2 ) PETITIONER claimed that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe - Halba. Her Tribe claim Certificate, which was forwarded to scrutiny Committee, has been invalidated and confiscated under the Maharashtra Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other backward Classes and Special Backward category (Regulation of Issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity].
( 3 ) IN view of the invalidation of petitioner's caste claim, petitioner's admission to MBBS Course was cancelled by communication dated 29th March, 2008. Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008.
( 4 ) PETITIONER filed Writ Petition no. 1958 of 2008 and challenged the order of invalidation, and made an alternate submission that in the event the challenge to the invalidation fails, her admission to MBBS Course could be protected.
( 5 ) THIS Court dismissed said Writ petition by order dated 5th August, 2008, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent-Director of Medical Education and Research, with a direction that such representation be decided within eight weeks, and that petitioner's admission to MBBS Course shall remain protected till the decision on her representation.
( 6 ) PETITIONER then submitted a representation with a forwarding letter which is dated 22nd August, 2008.
( 7 ) PETITIONER's representation has been rejected by the Director of Medical education and Research by order dated 6th september, 2008. Writ Petition No. 6056 of 2006
( 8 ) PETITIONER had challenged the said order dated 6th September, 2008 by filing Writ petition No. 4054 of 2008. The relief, which was sought in the petition, reads as follows :-
"a) That, by passing a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quash and set aside the order/communication at Annexure- A, dated 6-9-2008 bearing no. DMER/wp no. 1958/08/ku. Mayuri M. Bende/1-A passed by the respondent No. 2, Directorate of medical Education and Research, through its Director, Mumbai. B) It be held and declared that in view of the law laid down by the Apex court petitioner is entitled for protection in her education and further she be permitted to complete her studies and to appear for examination and she is entitled for degree upon successful completion of her MBBS Course. "
[quoted from Page Nos. 12 and 13 of the paper-book of decided Writ Petition No. 4054 of 2008].
( 9 ) WRIT Petition No. 4054 of 2008 has been rejected by this Court by its speaking order dated 7th October, 2008.
( 10 ) PETITIONER seeks exception to the said order and has, therefore, filed present review Application.
( 11 ) THE points, as raised in the Writ petition and Review Application, are one and the same.
( 12 ) WE have heard learned Advocate mr. R. S. Parsodkar for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Anup Parihar for the respondents. We have called for the records of [1] Writ Petition No. 2657 of 1993, [2] Writ petition No. 3401 of 2005, and [3] Writ Petition no. 1958 of 2008, for perusal. Submissions
( 13 ) CRUX of the matter can be grasped from the petitioner's representation dated 22nd august, 2008 submitted to the respondent No. 2, [copy whereof is at page 76 of the Writ Petition]. In this representation, the petitioner has urged following points :-
[a] The petitioner was admitted to mbbs Course furtherance to orders of this court. [b] The Scrutiny Committee did not observe in its order that the Tribe Certificate obtained by the candidate from the Competent authority is false, bogus, or secured by playing fraud etc. [c] In view of the Judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of [1] Sandeep subhash Parate, and [2] Raju Ramsingh Vasave [citations referred later], the petitioner is entitled to protection of her education and secure the degree by re-compensating the State on payment of such costs as may be quantified. [d]
