Ajinkya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. N.B. Narwade, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.V. Wagh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : D.G. KARNIK & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 27TH MARCH 2012 COURT'S ORDER (Per D.G. Karnik, J.) :

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th December 2009, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik (For short, "the Scrutiny Committee"), rejecting the petitioner's application for calling the District Resettlement Officer, Ahmednagar, for the purpose of cross examination.

3. The petitioner applied to the Tahsildar for grant of a caste certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to 'Mannerwarlu' Scheduled Tribe. Since the Tahsildar is not an officer competent to issue the certificate, he forwarded the same (3) to the District Resettlement Officer, Ahmednagar. The District Resettlement Officer after holding an inquiry issued the caste certificate. On a complaint made by a third person that the caste certificate was falsely obtained by the petitioner as well as by his brother, the caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. During the course of an inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner made an application to call the District Resettlement Officer, Ahmednagar, as a witness. By the impugned order, the application was rejected.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 9 of 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 (For short, "Caste Verification Act"), the Scrutiny Committee while holding an inquiry under the Act, shall have all powers which a Civil Court has while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in particular, in respect of the matters pertaining to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Scrutiny Committee, therefore, had a power to call for any person as a witness and the Scrutiny (4) Committee, therefore, ought to have summoned the District Resettlement Officer, who had initially issued the caste certificate, for cross examination.

5. We are afraid, that the application was totally misconceived. No doubt, Section 9 of the Caste Verification Act confers a power to the Scrutiny Committee to call any person as a witness, but ordinarily this power shall not be exercised for summoning a person who has issued a caste certificate, unless there are strong and weighty reasons for doing so. Such strong and weighty reasons may be fraud, acts of nepotism, etc. If every competent officer who issues a caste certificate at the first instance is required to attend the Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of cross examination and required to justify his decision of either granting or rejecting the caste certificate, the very working of such officers would become difficult, if not impossible. They would be required to attend every day to the office of one Scrutiny Committee or the other for the purpose of cross examination. We do not approve of the practice, if there be any, of summoning the officer who issues initially the caste certificate, save and except in the cases alleged fraud, nepotism or the like.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a (5) decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajkumar s/o. Deepchand Mulchandani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008(6) Mh.L.J. 31), and submits that the Scrutiny Committee is empowered to issue summons to a witness. In that case, the Division Bench has observed in paragraph 12 as follows: " It is no doubt true that provisions of section 9 of the Act empowers the Caste Scrutiny Committee to exercise all the powers of the Civil Court while holding enquiry under this Act and is also entitled to follow the procedure stipulated under the Code of However, these Civil Procedure, 1908. powers are required to be exercised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as and when it is necessary to do so and it is not mandatory for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to strictly follow the procedure stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to the trial of the suit while conducting caste verification proceedings. At the same time, there is no bar or prohibition for making application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the candidate whose caste claim is under verification, for necessary orders in view of provisions of section 9 of the Act. However, it is open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reject such application, if it is frivolous, not relevant for the issue in question, not bona fide, made only to delay the proceedings of enquiry or for any other reason, by passing speaking order. " (Underlining supplied) (6) While recognizing the right of the Scrutiny Committee to summon a witness, the Division Bench has held that it is open to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reject an application, if it is frivolous, not relevant to the issue in question, not bona fide or made only to delay the proceedings of enquiry or for any other reason, by passing speaking order. In the present case, we are satisfied that the application made by the petitioner is not bona fide and is made for delaying the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee. We are unable to understand, what purpose would be achieved by calling a person who has issued tribe certificate in favour of the petitioner himself, as a witness and, that too, for the purpose of cross examination.

7. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2000/- [Rupees two thousand]. ( S.B. DESHMUKH ) ( D.G. KARNIK ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8774