Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012. Case: Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 6 Cited in 4 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: A.V. Savant, Sr. Adv., Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Mahesh Deshmukh and Rajshri Duhey, Advs. and For Respondents: Anant Bhushan Kanade, Sr. Adv., Kailash Pandey, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta M., Advs. Lawyer's Knit and Co.
JudgesB.S. Chauhan and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
IssueMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000; Central Excise Act, 1944;Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 114(3); Industrial ...
Citation2013 (136) FLR 574, 2012 (8) MLJ 679 (SC), 2012 (11) SCALE 39
Judgement DateNovember 08, 2012
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

B.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2009, filed by Respondent No. 5, challenging the caste certificate of the Appellant.

  2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

    1. The competent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the Appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). On the basis of the said certificate, the Appellant was appointed as Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Corporation') on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the Scheduled Tribes category. The Corporation referred the caste certificate of the Appellant for the purpose of verification, to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the, "Scrutiny Committee"). The Vigilance Cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee, upon conducting vigilance enquiry, vide order dated 29.12.1998, found that the Appellant did, in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes) and thus, the said certificate was verified. The Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the Appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the Appellant belonging to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). After the lapse of a period of 9 years, Respondent No. 5 filed complaint dated 9.1.2009, through an advocate before the Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of recalling the said validity certificate, on the ground that the Appellant had obtained employment by way of misrepresentation, and that he does not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category. In fact, the Appellant professed the religion of Islam and therefore, could not be a Scheduled Tribe.

    2. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the said application vide order dated 13.3.2009, observing that it had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate, as there is no statutory provision that provides for the same.

    3. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 13.3.2009, by filing Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench), praying for quashing of the order dated 13.3.2009, and directing the Scrutiny Committee to hold de novo enquiry, with respect to the Appellant's caste certificate. The Appellant contested the said petition, denying all the allegations made by Respondent No. 5. Vide its impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition without going into the merits of the case. However, while doing so, the High Court set aside the order dated 13.3.2009, and remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, directing it to hear all the parties concerned in accordance with law, as regards the allegations made by Respondent No. 5 in the complaint. It further directed the Committee to decide the said matter within a period of 6 months.

    Hence, this present appeal.

  3. Before proceeding further, it may also be pertinent to refer to certain subsequent developments.

    During the pendency of this appeal, this Court vide order dated 20.11.2009, granted a stay with respect to the operation of the aforementioned impugned judgment. Vide order dated 6.1.2012, the said interim order was modified, to the extent that the Scrutiny Committee would re-examine the case on merit, without being influenced by earlier proceedings before it, and by giving adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases after which, the Scrutiny Committee would submit its report to this Court within a period of 3 months.

  4. Shri A.V. Savant, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Appellant has submitted that Respondent No. 5 does not belong to any reserved category, infact, he belongs to the General category, and hence, he has no right or locus standi, to challenge the Appellant's certificate. Thus, the High Court committed an error by directing the Scrutiny Committee to entertain the complaint filed by Respondent No. 5. It has further been submitted that, despite the directions given by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee failed to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the Appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and no order was passed with respect to his application for recalling such witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, which has no doubt, resulted in the grave miscarriage of justice. The affidavit filed by the Scrutiny Committee did not clarify, or make any specific statement with respect to whether or not the Appellant was permitted to cross-examine witnesses. It further, did not clarify whether the application dated 28.2.2012, filed by the Appellant to re-call witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, has been disposed of. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is in contravention of the statutory requirements, as have been specified under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the, `Act 2001'), and the Rules, 2003 which are framed under the Act 2001 and therefore, all proceedings hereby stand vitiated. The Appellant placed reliance upon several documents which are all very old and therefore, their authenticity should not have been doubted. The earlier report submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 29.12.1998, clearly stated that the traits and characteristics of the Appellant's family, matched with those of Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). The action of Respondent No. 5 is therefore, completely malafide and is intended, solely to harass the Appellant, and the High Court committed grave error in not deciding the issue related to the locus standi of Respondent No. 5 in relation to him filing a complaint in the first place, as the said issue was specifically raised by the Appellant. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

  5. Per contra, Shri Shankar Chillarge, learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, has made elaborate submissions, in support of the impugned judgment and subsequent proceedings. Mr. Udaya Kumar Sagar and Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5, have also supported the impugned judgment of the High Court and has further submitted that even though Respondent No. 5, does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, he most certainly could file a complaint against the Appellant, at such a belated stage, as the Appellant had obtained employment in 1989, by way of mis-representation and fraud. Respondent No. 5, being a public spirited person has espoused the cause of the real persons who have been deprived of their right to be considered for the said post occupied by the Appellant. Respondent No. 5 has also filed affidavits of relevant persons before the Scrutiny Committee, to prove his allegations. Thus, the present appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

  6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    Person aggrieved:

  7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.

    Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the Appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the Appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 784).

  8. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1361).

  9. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT