Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishore Barapatre, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Act, 2000 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003. The ground was that the Scrutiny Committee constituted to verify his caste claim had a Joint Commissioner as Chairman instead of an Additional Commissioner as directed by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil cases. The petitioner also argued that the Member Secretary lacked the required qualifications. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition, holding that the directions in Madhuri Patil were directory, not mandatory, and the committee's constitution was valid. The court did not find merit in the constitutional challenge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Caste Certificate Verification - Validity of Scrutiny Committee Constitution - Section 6(1) Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, Rule 9 of Rules 2003 - Petitioner challenged the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the Chairman was Joint Commissioner instead of Additional Commissioner as per Madhuri Patil (II) - Court held that the directions in Madhuri Patil were not mandatory but directory, and the constitution was valid - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Act, 2000 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003 are unconstitutional on the ground that the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee is not in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil cases.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. The court held that the directions in Madhuri Patil cases are directory, not mandatory, and the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee with Joint Commissioner as Chairman is valid.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Section 6(1) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and Rule 9 of Rules 2003
- Directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil cases
- Composition of Scrutiny Committee
- Qualifications of Member Secretary
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 115
Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2018
Sunil B. Shukre, Rohit B. Deo
Mr. S.R. Narnaware for petitioner, Ms. K.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State
Kishore S/o Bariksao Barapatre
Joint Commissioner & Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur; Sabhapati, Shiksha Mandal, Wardha; Principal, Jankidevi Bajaj College of Science, Wardha
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging constitutional validity of provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and Rules 2003 regarding constitution of Scrutiny Committee for caste certificate verification.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that Section 6(1) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Rules are unconstitutional and invalid.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's caste claim was scrutinized by a Committee whose Chairman was Joint Commissioner instead of Additional Commissioner as per Supreme Court directions.
Issues
Whether Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and Rule 9 of the Rules 2003 are unconstitutional for not following the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil cases regarding composition of Scrutiny Committee.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee was Joint Commissioner, whereas the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (II) directed that only Additional Commissioner (Revenue) could be Chairman. Relied on Mangesh Nirutti Kashid v. District Collector, Satara. Also argued that the Member Secretary lacked required qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi
The directions of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil cases regarding the composition of the Scrutiny Committee are directory in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, the constitution of the Committee with a Joint Commissioner as Chairman is valid under Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and Rule 9 of the Rules 2003.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
According to the petitioner Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and 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 and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 are unconstitutional.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1356 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and Rule 9 of the Rules 2003. The court heard the matter on 13.11.2019 and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and 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: Section 6(1)
- Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003: Rule 9
