Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved