SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

Vijay Ramchandra Harpale v. State of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (13 Dec 2016)

Committee may consider opinion of Vigilance Cell though Vigilance report is not binding on Scrutiny Committee

MANU/MH/2650/2016

Election

Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction and sought to challenge order passed by Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.3, thereby invalidating Caste Certificate of Petitioner issued by Respondent No. 4 (Deputy Collector (Land acquisition No.4), Sub Divisional Officer. Respondent no.6 submitted a complaint before Respondent no.2 alleging that Petitioner does not belong to Kunbi (OBC caste).

Present case requires to be remanded back to Scrutiny Committee for a fresh consideration. Reason for remanding the case back to the Scrutiny Committee is to give an opportunity to Petitioner to put up his case by relying upon documents. It is apparent that, Vigilance Cell has supported claim of Petitioner. Complainant had tendered documents which were required to be countered by Petitioner. Scrutiny Committee however instead of granting time, closed the case for orders. However, thereafter Petitioner had tendered voluminous documents in nature of 22 school leaving certificates of his relations and extracts of properties in support of his claim. Said documents were apparently not considered. Committee ought to have given proper opportunity to the petitioner to prove his relationship with his ancestors whose extracts of Birth and Death Registers of pre-independence era were produced by Petitioner in form of school leaving certificates etc.

In consonance with principles of natural justice, an opportunity ought to be given to Petitioner to put up his case in proper perspective. It is true that Vigilance report is not binding on Scrutiny Committee. However, Committee may consider opinion of Vigilance Cell in light of documents relied upon by Petitioner. High Court quashed impugned order and remanded matter back to said respondent/Committee for a fresh consideration of caste claim of Petitioner.

Tags : ELECTION   CASTE CERTIFICATE   AUTHENTICITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved