Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
Sk. Hamid Sk. Hanif – Petitioner
Versus
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 6449 & 6450 of 2016
Decided On : 24-02-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Mardikar with Shri M.A. Vaishnav.
For the Respondents: Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Mr. N.A. Gawande and Mr. J.B. Kasat.
Important Point—Burden is upon person claiming caste benefit to prove his case. A person who does not discharge such burden is not entitled to benefit and looses the right.
Headnote:Maharashtra Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribe Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 - Section 6-Caste claim.-Since documents produced by petitioner relating to his caste claim became doubtful hence invalidation of caste claim by scrutiny committee justified.
Orders of the Scrutiny Committee dated 21.10.2016 invalidating caste claims of the respective petitioners do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. Same are upheld, both the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- each payable by them to the Scrutiny Committee. Rule discharged accordingly.
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribe Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 - Section 6-Maharashtra Scheduled Castes Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, Rules 17(6) and 18-Verification of caste certificate.-Findings recorded by vigilance cell is not binding on scrutiny committee and cannot be used as evidence.
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012-Rules 17 and 18-Maharashtra Scheduled Costes, Scheduled Tribes Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Castes Certificate Act, 2000, Sections 6 and 8-Scheme for verification of caste certificate.-Scrutiny committee conducting verification of caste certificate consists of three competent persons able to hear and decide jointly.
Joint exercise of caste verification implies mutual exchange between all three members of their views reached till then, impact of ideas or views of each of them on the others. Resultant, correction in ones own views or moulding thereof is the idea of joint hearing and joint verification.
The procedure prescribed by the Rules 2012 guarantees a joint exercise by the sincere members with open mind, undertaken honestly to arrive at a unanimous verdict, if necessary after an attempt for resolving conflicts amongst themselves. Scrutiny Committee consists of three competent persons able to hear and decide jointly with open mind. Use of collective wisdom is a guarantee to an individual seeking caste validity, of a fair verification process, free of all prejudices as also of other human errors, to the extent legally possible. None of the Committee members can avoid to deliberate and refuse to honour this solemn obligation accepted by him while occupying the office.
In the present case, joint exercise is apparent from the application of mind perceived in the impugned order dated 21.10.2016. The first application of mind jointly by all the three members is explicit in the roznama or order sheet dated 15.10.2016 wherein the gist of findings of the scrutiny Committee with some reasons surface. In the impugned order dated 21.10.2016, more reasons are recorded which are in consonance with said order-sheet. Merely, because a short reasoned order is reflected in the order-sheet on 15.10.2016 with no mention that a more detailed order was to follow, that by itself is not sufficient to vitiate the final order dated 21.10.2016.
The Committee Members not conversant with the procedure have only committed an honest and inadvertent error by indicating the gist of its effective deliberations on 15.10.2016 which does not prejudice the merits of its exercise and said error deserves to be ignored. Orders of the Scrutiny Committee dated 21.10.2016 invalidating caste claims of respective petitioners do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner questions the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the caste certificate dated 20.01.2012 and rejecting his claim towards Lohar “V.J. (B).” When hearing of this matter was going on, Writ Petition Nos. 538 and 2009 of 2016 also expedited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to our notice and were required to be heard. Contentions raised therein also had bearing on findings to be recorded here and hence, we thought it proper to have the benefit of hearing another Senior Advocate and other team of Advocates before proceedings to deliver this judgment. We mention that our findings on scheme of Rule 17 of 2012 Rules below are mostly due to assistance we got in all these matters. Hearing in Writ Petition No. 538/2016 commenced on 30.1.2017 and it has been closed for judgment on 10.02.2017.
2. Petitioner was earlier given validity by the Scrutiny Committee on 20.01.2012 vide Certificate No. 1886. Respondent no. 2 in the present matter sought cancellation of that validity, but, respondent no. 1 Committee rejected that application on 26.08.2013. It held that it had no power to review the order granting caste validity. Respondent no. 2 then approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 4796/2013 against that order. On 08.04.2015, this Court by a speaking order restored the application moved by respondent no. 2 back to the file of respondent no. 1. The Committee was directed to extend opportunity of hearing to present petitioner, as also complainant/respondent no. 2 and to decide the controversy as per Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001” for short). Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15211/2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.08.2016, quashed and set aside the validity given to petitioner as also order of Scrutiny Committee dated 26.08.2013 and directed respondent no. 1 Committee to take decision on petitioners caste claim within a period of 6 weeks. The Committee thereafter has proceeded further to complete the verification and impugned order came to be passed on 21.10.2016.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had protected tenure of the petitioner as an elected Corporator during the pendency of the fresh proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee. In this Writ Petition that protection was again continued. These developments and subsequent events up to closure of matter for delivery of judgment appear in our order dated 03.02.2017, passed in this petition. We find it appropriate to reproduce the same here.
“1. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment, dated 5th August 2016, delivered in Civil Appeal No. 7311-7312 both of 2016, while disposing of challenge raised by present petitioner took note of the fact that petitioner’s tenure as elected Corporator was to expire in January, 2017. Therefore, though order of Scrutiny Committee giving him caste validity was set aside, status quo was granted and his position as Corporator was protected. While doing so, Scrutiny Committee was directed to complete the proceedings before it within six weeks from the date of production of copy of Supreme Court judgment before it and thereafter the High Court was expected to dispose of Writ Petition in next four weeks. Now, at this stage, it is informed that this time has been extended by Hon’ble Apex Court by two more months. Copy of order extending time is not made available to us till now.
2. Scrutiny Committee has invalidated caste claim and there is dispute about the order Annexure “A” produced before us, as the impugned order mentions date of decision as 15.10.2016 with outward number dated 21.10.2016.
3. The Writ Petiti
