Baswant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4124 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20174/98)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20174/98)
Petitioner: Baswant
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4124 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20174/98)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20174/98)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 21, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 16 – Caste certificate – Order of Scrutiny Committee challenged – Writ dismissed summarily – Formerly, the Committee of only
two members – Later, Committee of three members constituted. Held
that in view of the fact, appeal is allowed. Committee to decide afresh if the certificate granted is justified or not.
(Paras 4, 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Madhuri Patil (Kumari) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development,
(JT 1994 (5) SC 488)
(JT 1994 (5) SC 488)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the Order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (respondent no. 4). The writ petition was rejected summarily by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order. That order is challenged in this appeal.
4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, it has been pointed out that respondent no. 1 firstly constituted Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee consisting of two members only. Hence, the constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in Madhuri Patil (Kumari) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development, (JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = (1994) 6 SCC 241). Thereafter, the State Government has constituted a new Committee consisting of three members. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4, the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
5. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad is directed to decide afresh whether the caste certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate and confirmed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 18.11.1995 was justified. The Committee is directed to pass appropriate order within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the Order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (respondent no. 4). The writ petition was rejected summarily by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order. That order is challenged in this appeal.
4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, it has been pointed out that respondent no. 1 firstly constituted Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee consisting of two members only. Hence, the constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in Madhuri Patil (Kumari) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development, (JT 1994 (5) SC 488 = (1994) 6 SCC 241). Thereafter, the State Government has constituted a new Committee consisting of three members. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4, the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
5. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad is directed to decide afresh whether the caste certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate and confirmed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 18.11.1995 was justified. The Committee is directed to pass appropriate order within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
