SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(MP) 1159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
SANJAY YADAV, S.K. AWASTHI, JJ.
Pranav Dwivedi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. No. 3163 of 2016
Decided On : 10-11-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor General

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found no justification for issuing a mandamus to the Central Government for the revision of the OBC list under Section 11 of the Act.

Headnote:

National Commission for Backward Classes Act - Revision of OBC List - Section 11 of the National Commission For Backward Classes Act, 1993 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, which stipulates the periodic revision of lists by the Central Government with a view to excluding backward classes who have ceased to be backward or including new backward classes. The court deliberated on whether the provision is mandatory or enabling, and examined the actions taken by the Central Government in consultation with NCBC for the revision of the OBC list. The court concluded that no action warranted the issuance of a mandamus to the Central Government for the revision of the OBC list.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the government to revise the central backward class list under Section 11(1) of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993. The petitioner contended that the government had not undertaken the revision despite the expiration of ten years from the coming into force of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Central Government had taken measures in consultation with NCBC for the revision of the OBC list, and no action warranted the issuance of a mandamus as sought by the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was whether the provision in Section 11 of the Act, regarding the periodic revision of OBC lists, is mandatory or enabling, and whether the petitioner's claim for a mandamus was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while leaving the issue of whether the provision in Section 11 is mandatory or enabling to be decided in an appropriate case, there was no good reason to issue a mandate to the Central Government for the revision of the OBC list.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of finally, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER :

SANJAY YADAV, J.

1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks following reliefs:

"10. Relief(s) Prayed For:

On the basis of the aforementioned facts and the grounds urged, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon'ble court to allow the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is further prayed:

(a) to direct the government to revise the central backward class list which is mandatory public duty under section 11(1) of National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 through appropriate methodology which may include constitution of commission.

(b) To direct the government to carry out the abovementioned revision within six months of passing of such order.

(c) To grant any other relief, writ, order, direction which the Hon'ble court deem fit and necessary for upholding Justice, Equity and Good Conscience."

Section 11 of the National Commission For Backward Classes Act, 1993 (for brevity "the Act of 1993) stipulates:

"11. Periodic revision of lists by the Central Government.-(1) The Central Government may at any time, and shall, at the expiration of ten years from the coming into force of this Act and every succeeding period of ten years thereafter, undertake revision of the lists with a view to excluding from such lists those classes who have ceased to be backward classes or for including in such lists new backward classes.

(2) The Central Government shall, while undertaking any revision referred to in subsection (1), consult the Commission."

2. Evident it is that the Act of 1993 was enacted to constitute National Commission for Backward Classes other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the statement of object and reasons it finds mention that the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney on 16.11.1992 paved the passage for enactment of Act of 1993 with an object to carry out the verdict of the Supreme Court.

3. Section 2(c) defines "lists" to mean : "lists prepared by the Government of India from time to time for purposes of making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens which, in the opinion of that Government, are not adequately represented in the services under the Government of India and any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India." Thus, it is the opinion of Government of India for purpose of making provision of reservation of appointments on posts in favour of backward classes of citizen not adequately represented in the service of the Government of India and any local or other authority which is paramount. That chapter III deals with the functions and powers of the commission. Section 9 envisages function of the commission that, the commission shall examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any backward class in such lists and tender such advice to the Central Government as it deems appropriate. Subsection 2 of Section 9 stipulates "The advice of the Commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the Central Government."

4. Section 11 provides for that the Central Government may at any time, and shall, at the expiration of ten years from the coming into force of this Act and every succeeding period of ten years thereafter, undertake revision of the lists with a view to excluding from such lists those classes who have ceased to be backward classes or for including in such lists new backward classes. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 stipulates that the Central Government shall, while undertaking any revision referred to in sub-section (1), consult the commission.

5. The question is can a mandate be issued to the Central Government to undertake the exercise under Section 11 after the expiry of 10 years. In other words, whether the provision is mandatory or only enabling. Because if they are ma
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top