Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ku. Nika d/o Shambhunath Bharti, challenged an order of the Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2, Nagpur (respondent no.1) which had decided her caste claim without calling for a Vigilance Cell report. The High Court noted that there was no dispute that the Vigilance Cell report was not called for as required by law before deciding the caste claim. Consequently, the impugned order was vitiated and liable to be set aside. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law, directing the committee to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date the petitioner appears before it. The petitioner was directed to appear before the committee on 25/1/2010. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Caste Scrutiny - Vigilance Cell Report - Mandatory Requirement - The Caste Scrutiny Committee is required to call for a Vigilance Cell report before deciding a caste claim. Failure to do so vitiates the order. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated for not calling for the Vigilance Cell report as required by law.
Final Decision
The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The committee shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date petitioner appears before it. Petitioner to appear before the committee on 25/1/2010. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Caste Scrutiny Committee must call for Vigilance Cell report before deciding caste claim
- Failure to call Vigilance Cell report vitiates the order
- Remand for fresh decision in accordance with law
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 452
Writ Petition No.3173 of 2009
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
A.S. Chandurkar for petitioner, S.S. Doifode for respondent no.1
Ku. Nika d/o Shambhunath Bharti
Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2, Nagpur and The Principal, Aditya Engineering College, Beed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Caste Scrutiny Committee rejecting caste claim without calling for Vigilance Cell report.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order and remand for fresh decision.
Filing Reason
The Caste Scrutiny Committee decided the caste claim without calling for the Vigilance Cell report as required by law.
Previous Decisions
The Caste Scrutiny Committee had passed an order against the petitioner, which was challenged.
Issues
Whether the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated for not calling for the Vigilance Cell report as required by law.
Submissions/Arguments
There is no dispute that Vigilance Cell's report was not called for as required by law before deciding the caste claim of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
The Caste Scrutiny Committee must call for a Vigilance Cell report before deciding a caste claim; failure to do so vitiates the order.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no dispute that Vigilance Cell's report was not called for as required by law before deciding the caste claim of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be set aside, which is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order of the Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2, Nagpur. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 15 January 2010.
