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



Suresh v/s District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola, Through Its Member / Secretary & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M SURESH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36910MH2004PTC149806

Company & Directors' Information:- SURESH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1941PTC003295

    Writ Petition Nos. 3588, 3587, 3627, 3628, 3700, 3701, 3817 & 3854 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 Petitioner: S.D. Chopde, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, N.R. Patil, Advocate, N.P. Mehta, A.G.P.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. 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.4/5, 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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 9 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 sub-rule [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.

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 6 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.

12. 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 27.02.2018, 21.03.2018, 20.02.2018, 22.03.2018, 17.02.2018, 21.02.2018, 01.06.2018 and 23.05.2018. The matters are placed back before the Scrutiny Committee, Akola for taking fresh decision asper law.

13. We direct petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 8th 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.

14. 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 shall also give petitioners

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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

08-06-2020 Shriram Versus Suresh Kumar (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-06-2020 Suresh Nair Versus Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of External Affairs, E-Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 V. Suresh Serve Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
01-05-2020 Bank of Baroda Erstwhile Dena Bank Versus Suresh Chand Seth & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 K.S. Suresh Versus The State of Karnataka by Tirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bangaluru High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 Dr. Suresh & Others Versus University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 Suresh Gordhanbhai Gorasiya Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Leelabai Versus Saroja Suresh Salunke High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-03-2020 P. Suresh Versus State Rep.by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pattabiram Range, (T-11, Thirunindravur Incharge) High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 V.T. Suresh Kumar Versus Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 Suresh Bhalchandra Nagarkar & Another Versus Baby Jaywant Shinde High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 K.M. Suresh Babu Versus M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Aviation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bhavesha Suresh Goradia & Others Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Navnath Londhe & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 Suresh Kumar Chauhan Versus Dr. Puneesh Rohtagi High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 M/s. Zee Telefilms Ltd. (Now Known as Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.) Versus Suresh Productions & Others Supreme Court of India
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-02-2020 Suresh Chand & Another Versus Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs. & Others Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Suresh Laxman Babar Sainagar Zopadpatti & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-02-2020 D. Suresh Versus The District Collector, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Md Mufty Ashadullah Versus Suresh Kr Dhanuka & Others High Court of Gauhati
05-02-2020 Suresh Kumar Choubey (Suresha Choubey now) & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-02-2020 Suresh Tanted & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
31-01-2020 N.T. Thomas (Wrongly shown as M.T. Thomas in the Judgment in R.C.A) Versus Suresh Pai High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 Om Prakash Versus Suresh Kumar Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Suresh Sakharam Sawant & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2020 H. Ashok Versus H. Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Suresh Babu Versus The District Registrar,(Administration) Registration Department Integrated Complex, Arakonam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 S. Suresh Versus S. Mohanavel High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 P. Suresh Versus The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-12-2019 A. Swarooparani Versus P. Suresh & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-12-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board & Another Versus Suresh Kumar Kajla National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 B. Suresh Versus The Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Office, Ariyalur High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lr. Versus Mahant Suresh Das & Others Supreme Court of India
12-12-2019 Suresh Kumar Palle Versus The Managing Director, Mumbai & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-12-2019 Laxmi Devi Versus Suresh Mendiratta High Court of Delhi
05-12-2019 Devendra Suresh Gupta Ramdas Niwas Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-11-2019 Suresh Versus Gunasekar High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2019 M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs V/S Mahant Suresh Das and Others.* Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Suresh Kumar Jain & Others Versus Madanlal Jain & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 Chandrashekharayya Puttayya Hiremath Versus Suresh Siddangouda Hosagoudar Supreme Court of India
08-11-2019 Yerramreddy Venkata Suresh Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Seceretariat Buildings Velagapudi at Amaravathi Guntur District High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-11-2019 M/s. PSS Sports & Recreation Club, Rep. by its President, P. Suresh Kumar Versus The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Neethimedu, Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Suresh & Others V/S State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perambalur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Kishin T. Panjabi Versus Suresh Kothari High Court of Karnataka
24-10-2019 The State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others Versus Dr. K.G. Suresh, Pathanamthitta High Court of Kerala
16-10-2019 State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Suresh Kumar Dhruv High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-10-2019 Chandra Sundararaj (died) & Others Versus C.M. Dhinakaran @ Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-10-2019 A. Suresh Kumar Versus H.N. Sathish High Court of Karnataka
10-10-2019 Maharashtra Vidyarathi Sahayak Mandal, Pune & Others Versus Suresh Deshmukh & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-10-2019 Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corporation Limited Versus P.P. Suresh & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Bir Bajrangi Akhara Versus Suresh Nayyar & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-09-2019 Suresh Naik Versus K. Dinesh Kumar High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-09-2019 Suresh & Others V/S State by its Inspector of Police, Sethiathope Police Station, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 Suresh Sharma Versus State of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
02-09-2019 Suresh Jain Versus Mandeep Singh Batra & Others High Court of Delhi
27-08-2019 M/s. PSS Sports and Recreation Club, represented by its President, P. Suresh Kumar Versus The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2019 Ketan Suresh Pawar & Another Versus Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant & Another Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Narasimhamurthy Versus Suresh Chandra Gupta, Dead by his Lrs: Ravi Agarwal, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2019 Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited Versus Suresh Maruti Chougule & Others Supreme Court of India
21-08-2019 Suresh Chandar Versus Inspector of Police, Ariyur Police Station, Vellore High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2019 The Management, (erstwhile Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.), Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai Versus J. Suresh Kumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2019 S. Suresh Versus A. Mahalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 A. Anandan & Others Versus P. Suresh, Secretary, Valancherry High School Managing Committee, Malappuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2019 M. Suresh Versus The Inspector of Police, NIB, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 Ummidi Venkata Rao Versus Ghanto Suresh Kumar High Court of Andhra Pradesh
31-07-2019 Suresh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Home Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Suresh @ Sureshkumar & Another Versus State by the Inspector of Police Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-07-2019 S. Suresh Babu, Managing Partner, Unnikuttan Construction Company, Kadakkavoor Versus Soorya S. Krishna Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
19-07-2019 Dr. Kshetrimayum Manglem Singh Versus Dr. Suresh Babu, IAS High Court of Manipur
15-07-2019 Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta & Others Versus Suresh Kothari High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-07-2019 Suresh Kumar Pandey Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-07-2019 Vanitha & Others Versus V. Suresh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2019 Suresh Versus The Sub Inspector of Police, Vdakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
09-07-2019 Anita Suresh V/S Union of India and Others. High Court of Delhi
08-07-2019 Suresh Nakra Versus Murugesan Adimoolam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-07-2019 Sheela Suresh Nimkar Versus Vilas Vishnu Chansarkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-07-2019 Suresh V/S State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-07-2019 Suresh Yadav Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
25-06-2019 Suraj Pressings Pvt. Limited, Through its Director R.N. Bhat Versus Suresh Rabhaji Gaikwad In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-06-2019 Suresh Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 G. Suresh Versus Chellapandi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 Ashok Yashwant Badve & Others Versus Suresh Tulshiram Bhagwat & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2019 V. Suresh Versus State by P.S. Mahadevapura, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
03-06-2019 Kancham Suresh Versus Telukunta Swaroopa High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-05-2019 Education Rights Trust Represented by its Trustee, C. Suresh Kumar, Bangalore & Others Versus Government of Karnataka Represented by Principal Secretary, Primary Education Dept., Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
31-05-2019 Suresh Chandra Agnihotri Versus U.P. State Road Transport High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-05-2019 Dr. P. Suresh Babu IAS Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2019 Suresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-05-2019 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Suresh Gautam & Others High Court of Delhi
14-05-2019 Suresh Pannalal Mundada Versus Sant Namdeo Nagari Sahakari Pat-Sanstha Maryadit Hinpoli National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-05-2019 The Principal/ Administrator, KepeesInternational School, run by Kepees Educational and Charitable Trust, Crescent Hill, Kunnambetta.P.O, Wayanad Versus Suresh Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-05-2019 Suresh Martandro Kapgate & Others Versus District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-05-2019 Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Versus Suresh R. Andhare & Another Supreme Court of India
29-04-2019 Suresh Versus S. Revathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2019 M. Suresh Kumar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-04-2019 Suresh Mahata & Others Versus The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, FCI & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-04-2019 B.S. Suresh & Another Versus State by Shanivarasanthe Police Represented by Special Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Karnataka


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box