w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sadhana & Others v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare & Development & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- WELFARE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74999WB1946PTC014414

    Writ Petition Nos. 3143, 4131, 3539, 3738, 4101, 3586, 3537, 3780 & St.15599 of 2018

    Decided On, 16 July 2018

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE Z.A. HAQ

    For the Petitioners: U.J. Deshpande, R.P. Masurkar, A.S. Thotange, S.D. Chopde, V.R. Deshpande, Y.B. Mandpe, Advocates. For the Respondents: N.R. Patil, Advocate, N.P. Mehta, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Writ Petition St.No. 15599/2018 is filed today. As it is connected with Writ Petition No. 3143/2018 and other matters, with the consent of parties, it is taken up for consideration, as the impugned order is by very same Scrutiny Committee, at Akola and on same lines.

2. We have heard learned respective Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.Ps., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Though in few matters, Gram Panchayat concerned has been added as respondent no.4, either it is still not served or then though served there is no appearance for it. It is not a necessary party to the present petitions.

3. Considering the nature of controversy and short point involved, which at this stage arises for consideration, with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the matters for final hearing. Rule accordingly issued is made returnable forthwith.

4. It is not in dispute that in all these matters, caste claims need to be verified by adopting the procedure stipulated in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2012 Rules' for short).

5. Though in some Writ Petitions, there are individual contentions and various grounds have been urged before us, common ground in all these matters is about violation of procedure stipulated in Rule 17 of the 2012 Rules. Petitioners have relied upon Division Bench judgments reported in 2016 [3] All MR 717 (Lawrence Salvador D'Souza .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and 2015 [5] All MR 563 (Sapremsing Madhavrao Patil .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), to buttress their submissions. They contend that petitioners were not served with copy of Vigilance Cell Report and none of them has received notice in Form No.25.

6. Learned A.G.Ps., appearing on behalf of respondent State, are relying upon the impugned orders to urge that petitioners were called for hearing and documents available were shown to them. Submission is, thus, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, fairly the decision has been taken. They also submit that there no malafides urged against any Member or the Committee by any of the petitioners.

7. Perusal of the procedure stipulated in Rule 17, shows that as per Sub-rule [6], if after receipt of claim, along with an affidavit, the Committee is satisfied with the genuineness thereof, it has to forthwith issue validity certificate in Form No.20, without any inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. Sub-rule [7], applies when the Scrutiny Committee is not so satisfied. In that event, the caste claim is to be referred to Vigilance Cell for carrying out suitable enquiry as deemed fit. The proviso to subrule [7], mandates that findings recorded by the Vigilance Cell is not binding on the Scrutiny Committee at all and the Vigilance inquiry is a sort of internal assistance extended to the Scrutiny Committee in adjudication of the caste claim. Sub-rule [10], then enables the Committee to issue validity certificate in Form No.24, if it is satisfied with the genuineness of the claim, after receipt of the Vigilance Cell report. When it is not so satisfied, it has to proceed further as stipulated in sub-rule [11]. Sub-rule [11][i], lays down that the Committee has to call upon claimant to discharge the burden cast upon it by Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000. (Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act No.23 of 2001' for short). This is to be done by issuing notice in Form No.25. Form no.25 in turn is important, because the Committee in that Form is required to record its findings on caste claim. Thus, with the findings of the Committee after receipt of Vigilance Cell, when a notice goes to claimant, due to adverse findings of the Committee, the claimant is informed why the Committee is not satisfied with his caste claim, and thereafter, burden shifts to him under Section 8 of the Act No.23 of 2001.

8. None of the orders impugned before us show that this procedure has been followed by the Scrutiny Committee, Akola.

9. In some matters, petitioners claim that Vigilance Cell has not carried out home enquiry at all and petitioners were called to the office of the Scrutiny Committee where the Vigilance Cell Authorities generally put some questions to them. We need not to go into the disputed question of facts at this stage. Apart from above two judgments, this scheme and importance of Rule 17 and Form No.25 is also looked into by this Court in a judgment reported at 2014 [3] Mh.L.J. 73 (Nahidabano Ferozkhan Pathan .vrs. Divisional Commissioner and others). One of us, B.P. Dharmadhikari, J is party to it.

10. Respective learned A.G.Ps., during arguments invited our attention to the state of affairs. According to them, petitioners were expected to lend assistance to the Scrutiny Committee by giving complete family tree. Very cryptic information has been given and on that basis, the Committee has adjudicated upon the claim. We find substance in this submission, because before us there is an effort by some of the petitioners to add to family tree to demonstrate how the finding of relationship is bad in law.

11. It appears that when petitioners approached for verification of caste claim, in printed format of affidavit, there is a space for mentioning Family Tree, and everybody has given bare minimum details or then person who has obtained the affidavit, has collected only such details. This tree therefore, shows only one line of the descent from grandfather to father to petitioner.

12. Petitioners before this Court have only caste certificate and as per law have been permitted to contest elections. They have been elected. Law also permitted them to submit validity within months and accordingly their caste claim have been verified. A concession therefore, has been shown to petitioners by enabling them to contest the election only on the basis of caste certificate, after submitting an undertaking. In such litigation or rounds of litigations, petitioners would continue to discharge obligations of their office. If ultimately their caste claim is invalided, it may constitute a fraud on democracy itself.

13. In this situation, as we find the approach of the Scrutiny Committee in all these matters laconic, in breach of 2012 Rules, and unsustainable, we quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 01.03.2018, 23.05.2018, 02.02.2018, 20.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 02.02.2018, 05.03.2018, 09.03.2018 and 22.03.2018. The matters are placed back before the Scrutiny Committee, Akola for taking fresh decision asper law.

14. We direct petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 6th August, 2018 during working hours. On that day, petitioners shall file an affidavit about complete family tree and also disclose validities or invalidities in the family. If any caste claims are already pending before the Scrutiny Committee, or then in further challenge before any Court of law, details thereof shall also be furnished in that affidavit.

15. On that date, the Scrutiny Committee shall hand over copy of the vigilance cell report along with notice in Form No.25 to the respective petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee s

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hall also give petitioners next date of appearance and hearing, if it finds further vigilance enquiry into his matter unnecessary. Otherwise, it shall proceed further as per Rule 17 again. 16. Effort shall be made by the Scrutiny Committee to complete the verification as per the provisions contained in Act No.23 of 2001 read with 2012 Rules, within a period of next 6 months. 17. It is made clear that if the directions given to petitioner [supra], are not complied with on the date of his appearance, stipulated above, he/she shall not be permitted to exercise the right to vote in the meetings of the Gram Panchayat and shall not draw any allowance. 18. With above directions and observations, Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Dr. Ambadan Rao & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 Yogesh Suresh Chaudhari Versus M/S. Auto Wheels, Kubota Tractor Sales Services & Spares, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 Swapnil Versus State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Gangapur In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-07-2020 Vishnu Priya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, SC/ST Development Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Atmaram Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Gorakh Ramdas Kandge & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
14-07-2020 Mhaibub D. Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Makrand Chandrakant Bapardekar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Premier Employees & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Shailaja Madathil Valappil & Another Versus The State Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Health & Family Welfare Department, Represented by its Chairman, K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Devanand Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-06-2020 Dr. K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State President, Ayush Medical Welfare Association, Thiruvannamalai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Piya Mahantaney & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 A. Thangaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 D. Sundarapandiyan Versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2020 N. Vijayakumary Versus The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited, Registered Office Thrissur, Represented By Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Jai Pal & Others Versus Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 The Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Trichur & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by The Secretary To Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-05-2020 Rani Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Public Welfare Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-05-2020 S.K. Rout Versus Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-05-2020 Telecom Colony Residents Welfare Association Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-04-2020 Praneetha Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay