Shantidevi
Kamaleshkumar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2008] INSC 1438 (26
August 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5243 OF 2008 [Arising
out of SLP (C) No. 24662 of 2005] Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav .. Appellant
Versus State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
The
appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay dated 14.10.2005 delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2003.
3.
The
main grievance which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the
appellant is regarding non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The
appellant submitted that hearing of the case was closed for orders before the
Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29.9.2003. Thereafter, without notice to the
appellant, Caste Certificate Register was called on 28.10.2003 and
representatives from the Office of the Tehsildar were called on 7.11.2003. This
approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is clearly violative of the basic
principles of natural justice.
4.
According
to the appellant, this grievance was clearly articulated before the Division
Bench of the High Court, but it did not deal with this aspect of the matter,
therefore, in the interest of justice the matter should be remanded to the
Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the matter afresh after hearing the
counsel for the parties.
5.
This
Court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant issued notice limited
to the question as to whether the matter be remanded or not.
6.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the
documents on record. In the impugned judgment, there is no discussion regarding
the main grievance of the appellant why the Caste Certificate Register was
called for inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the representative
from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay City was recorded on 7.11.2003 after
the conclusion of the hearing.
7.
We
have heard learned counsel for the respondents at length but he could not give
any satisfactory reply why the caste register was called for inspection and the
statements of the representatives of the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay were
recorded after the conclusion of the hearing without any notice to the
appellant.
8.
In
consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity, good conscience and
fairness, we are compelled to set aside the impugned judgments of the High
Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
9.
Consequently,
we remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the case afresh
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The Caste Scrutiny Committee
must ensure that no hearing or deliberation takes place after the conclusion of
hearing without notice to the appellant.
10.
The
matter has been pending for several years, therefore, we request the Caste
Scrutiny Committee to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible. No
further directions are necessary. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
....................................J.
(Dalveer Bhandari)
....................................J.
(Harjit Singh Bedi)
New
Delhi;
August
26, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
