Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nilofarnaz w/o Nazkatkhan, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) challenging an order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, which invalidated her caste claim as belonging to Chhaparband VJ(A) under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Act 23 of 2001). The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hatroon. On 28.12.2011, ad-interim relief was granted, but on 11.01.2012, the Court vacated the relief and subjected the elections to the post of Sarpanch to the result of the petition. When the matter was taken up, the respondent No. 3, Shaikh Asif, raised a preliminary objection that the petition must be placed before a Single Judge of this Court in light of Chapter XVII Rule 18 sub-rule 3 (as amended) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333 = 2011 AIR SCW 6781, which clarified direction no. 13 in Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94. The Court adjourned the matter to hear the preliminary objection. The Court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Mr. S.V. Sohoni, the respondent No. 3's counsel, Mr. Z.A. Haq, the AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and amicus curiae. The Court noted the legislative history of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, as gathered from Patru s/o Kanuji Ghodmare vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 1055. The judgment is limited to the preliminary issue of maintainability and does not decide the merits of the caste claim.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Division Bench Jurisdiction - Chapter XVII Rule 18(3) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - The Court considered whether a writ petition against an order of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee under Act 23 of 2001 is maintainable before a Division Bench. The preliminary objection was raised that such matters must be heard by a Single Judge. The Court adjourned the matter to hear arguments on maintainability. (Paras 1-2) B) Caste Certificate - Scrutiny Committee Orders - Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - The petition sought to quash an order dated 13.12.2011 invalidating the petitioner's caste claim as Chhaparband VJ(A). The Court noted the preliminary objection based on Chapter XVII Rule 18(3) and the Supreme Court judgment in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, which clarified direction no. 13 in Kumari Madhuri Patil. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging an order of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is maintainable before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in light of Chapter XVII Rule 18(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and the judgment in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham.
Final Decision
The Court adjourned the matter to hear the preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The judgment does not contain a final decision on the merits; it only records the preliminary objection and the hearing on that issue. The Court noted the legislative history and reserved the matter for consideration of the preliminary objection.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition before Division Bench
- Interpretation of Chapter XVII Rule 18(3) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules
- 1960
- Applicability of Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham
- Jurisdiction of Single Judge in caste certificate matters under Act 23 of 2001
