Writ Petition No.3430 of 2007

13th March, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. B. GASTAGAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K. G. PATIL,Mr. C. K. SHINDE,Mr. S. T. SHELKE,Mr. A. B. KADETHANKAR,Mr. A. S. BAYAS

Cases Cited:
State of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205 [Para 4,5]
Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company Vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 [Para 4]

JUDGMENT

P. V. HARDAS, J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lays a challenge to the order passed by the respondent scrutiny committee validating the caste certificate issued to the 6th respondent as belonging to Bagwan - Other Backward Caste.

3. We need not dilate much on the factual aspect of the case in the light of the submission which has been made before us by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial authority and it is incumbent for the respondent Scrutiny Committee to give some reasons while validating the caste claim of the 6th respondent. It is urged before us that the order of the respondent scrutiny committee validating the caste claim of the 6th respondent is bereft of any reasons. We had accordingly asked Mr. C. K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Scrutiny Committee to make available for our perusal the record and proceeding. On perusal of the record and proceeding, it appears that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the respondent Scrutiny Committee. There has been no evaluation of the various documents submitted on behalf of the petitioner and 6th respondent. There is no appreciation of the report of the Vigilance Cell.

4. Mr. Gastagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205 and in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company Vs. Union of India and anr., AIR 1976 SC 1785 to urge before us that an order of quasi-judicial authority unsupported by a reasoned order is unsustainable in law.

5. A reference in this regard may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw - AIR 1990 SC 2205. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph has observed thus :

"It is indisputably true that it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the appellate authority had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings are binding on this Court or the High Court. By process of judicial review we cannot appreciate the evidence and record our own findings of fact. If on conjectures or surmises and no reasonable man would on given facts and circumstances, come to the conclusion reached by the appellate authority on the basis of the evidence on record, certainly this court would oversee whether the findings recorded by the appellate authority is based on no evidence or beset with surmises or conjectures. Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice."

6. In the present case, there has been no appreciation of various documents submitted on behalf of the rival parties. It is incumbent for the authority particularly the Caste Scrutiny Committee to evaluate the various documents submitted and give reasons for either accepting or rejecting the documents submitted on behalf of the parties. We have perused the original record and proceeding and we are perturbed to note that no reasons whatsoever have been given by the respondent scrutiny Committee for evaluating the caste claim of the 6th respondent. In the light of that therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Since the respondent scrutiny Committee has not given any reasons we are inclined to remit the matter back to the respondent scrutiny committee for decision afresh. Accordingly, we direct the 6th respondent and the petitioner to appear before the respondent scrutiny committee on 9.4.2008. Mr. C. K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent scrutiny committee states that the respondent scrutiny committee would decide the question of the caste certificate of the 6th respondent within three months of 9.4.2008. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the validity certificate granted to the 6th respondent. We remit the matter back to the respondent scrutiny committee for decision afresh. Parties to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 9.4.2008. The respondent scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of 6th respondent in accordance with law within three months of 9.4.2008. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.