Civil Revision Application No.1205 of 1997

1st August, 2001

Petitioner Counsel: A. V. ANTURKAR
Respondent Counsel: A. N. SAMANT A. P. ADSULE

Cases Cited:
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94 [Para 9]
Anil Kumar Neotia Vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1353 [Para 10]
C.C.E. Vs. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 330 [Para 10]
Harbanslal Vs. M. L. Wadhera, AIR 1987 SC 217 [Para 11]
Baliram Vs. Justice B. Lentin, AIR 1988 SC 2267 [Para 11]
Kotturuswami Vs. Veeravva, AIR 1959 SC 577 [Para 12]
Karansing Vs. Bhagwansing, (1965) 7 SCC 559 [Para 12]
P. Venkateswarlu Vs. Motor & General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409 [Para 12]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th October, 1997 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No.549 of 1993 arising out of judgment and decree dated 27 September, 1993 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No.481 of 1991; whereby the petitioner was held to be a person not belonging to nomadic tribe was confirmed.

ISSUE

2. The short question that arises for consideration under section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("C.P.C." for short) is as to whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit challenging the order directing cancellation of caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

The operative part of the order

Having heard the parties at length, this revision was dismissed on 7th June, 2001 for the reasons to be recorded subsequently. I accordingly, give my reasons for dismissing this revision. The reasons are based on the following facts:

THE FACTS

3. The petitioner claims to be a person belonging to "Hindu Rajput Lohar" community. He has obtained caste certificate on 18th August, 1981 from the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Pune. He was appointed as Head Master of one Raja Dhanrajgiri High School, Pune, which is run by respondent No.4. There was a complaint against the petitioner/plaintiff with regard to his caste. An enquiry was made by Tahasildar, Pune with regard to the caste of the petitioner. The Tahasildar, Pune, vide his order dated 13th January, 1986 declared that the petitioner did not belong to "Hindu Rajput Lohar" caste. Consequently, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

4. The petitioner approached this Court with Writ Petition bearing no.2784 of 1986 to challenge the above order dated 13th January, 1986. This Court directed fresh enquiry by another officer. Accordingly, fresh enquiry was conducted and again adverse order came to be passed on 27th November, 1990 holding that petitioner did not belong to "Hindu Rajput Lohar" caste. Consequently, again it was held that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner was bad and illegal. Thus by order dated 27th November, 1990, caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Collector, the defendant No.1.

5. The petitioner again approached this Court with another Writ Petition bearing No.5561 of 1990 to challenge the order dated 27th November, 1990; passed by the Collector, Pune. This Court rejected the said writ petition by observing that the petition contained disputed questions of fact.

6. The petitioner faced with the above situation approached Civil Court with a suit for declaration and injunction and sought a declaration that the order dated 27th November, 1990 passed by the Collector was bad and illegal and also prayed for consequential relief of injunction.

7. On being summoned, the defendants appeared before the trial Court. The defendant No.4 filed its written statement (Exh.53) and contended that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and try the suit. Both the parties chose not to adduce any oral evidence but to rely upon the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court heard both the parties and after considering the material on record found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The trial Court, accordingly, directed return of the plaint for presentation to the appropriate Court.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decision rendered by the trial Court, the petitioner filed appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.549 of 1993 against the order under order 43 rule 1(a) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("C.P.C." for short). The said appeal was heard by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Pune, and after hearing the parties to the appeal, the lower appellate Court was of the view that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of the instant nature. Consequently, judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court was confirmed.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner under section 115 of C.P.C.

DEVELOPMENT OF LAW PENDING APPEAL

9. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the Apex Court rendered decision in the case of Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. Sub-para-4 of para-12 of the said judgment reads as under :

"4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities."

The Apex Court noted that considerable time is normally taken by the scrutiny committee for verification of caste claims and for this purpose, the Apex Court with a view to streamline the procedure for issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval, issued certain guidelines to be followed by the scrutiny committee, while deciding the caste claims. The guidelines relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present revision application are extracted below:

"11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/ matter is disposed of by a single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136."

(emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court has also provided for the constitution of the scrutiny committee comprising of senior officers of the State for scrutinising the caste claims and/or for verification of caste certificates. The decision of the committee has been made final and conclusive subject to the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop the question which needs consideration is: what is the binding effect of the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) on touchstone of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The guidelines provided by the Apex Court are binding on all concerned persons; whether they are parties or not, as held by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 1353. It will not be out of place to mention that "in the hierarchical system of courts" which exists in our country, "it is necessary for each lower tier" including the High Court, "to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers". "It is inevitable in hierarchical system of courts that there are decisions of the Supreme appellate tribunal which do not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary. But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted". The better wisdom of the court below must yield to the higher wisdom of the court above as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of C.C.E. v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330.

11. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is deemed to have been incorporated in the statute in absence of any contrary statutory provision as held by the Supreme Court in Harbanslal v. M. L. Wadhera, AIR 1987 SC 217. It can only be rendered ineffective by subsequent legislative amendment, as observed by the Apex Court in Baliram v. Justice B. Lentin AIR 1988 SC 2267. In nutshell, general legal position and/or guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court would be binding on all concerned even though they were not parties to the decision. REASONS AND CONCLUSION

12. In view of the above legal position emerging from the various judgments, it is clear that the judgment rendered in Madhuri Patil's case being the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all the persons under Article 141 of the Constitution. In revisional jurisdiction, this court is entitled to take into consideration any change in law as held in Kotturuswami v. Veeravva AIR 1959 SC 577. In appeal and/or revision, the Court can take judicial notice of the law prevailing on the date of the order or judgment and mould the relief accordingly taking judicial notice of change in law during pendency of appeal and/or revision as laid down by the Supreme Court in Karansing and others v. Bhagwansing & others (1965) 7 SCC 559 and P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409. Thus, I concur with the ultimate conclusion of the Courts below, maybe for the different reasons recorded herein. I, therefore, hold that the Courts below were justified in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in question, however, the reasons recorded by them are set aside.

In the result, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.