LexNAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 121 : 2024 INSC 266 Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Civil Appeal No(s). 2741-2743 of 2024) 04 April 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The question that arises for consideration is that how far the High Court was justified in completely overturning the findings of Scrutiny Committee (validating the caste certificate of the appellant), in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by reappraisal of the entire evidence on record. Headnotes 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 – ss. 6, 7, 9 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 – rr. 13, 14, 17 – Various complaints were submitted against appellant before the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of the caste validity certificate issued in her favour by Deputy Collector – The High Court quashed and set-aside the order passed by Scrutiny Committee primarily on the ground that the same was obtained fraudulently and cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of appellant – Propriety: Held: A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and Rules of 2012 Rules, makes it clear that the power to deal with verification has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee and it falls within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b) of 2012 Rules – In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee accepted the caste claim of appellant vide order 03.11.2017 predominantly on the basis of two documents, i.e., (i) bona-fide 122 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports certificate dated 11.02.2014 issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce in the name of Appellant’s grandfather mentioning his caste as ‘Sikh Chamar’; and (ii) the Indenture of Tenancy of 1932 which corroborated the Appellant’s claim of her forefathers having migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in 1932 itself along with proof of residence – The adjudication on the basis of the documents falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny Committee based on the inputs received from the Vigilance Cell – The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding authority – The Scrutiny Committee duly considered the documents placed before it and after due application of mind on being satisfied, accorded reasons for accepting/validating the caste claim of the appellant herein while accepting/rejecting other certain documents – The Scrutiny Committee heard all the parties in detail complying with the principles of natural justice – Hence, the order of Scrutiny Committee did not merit any interference by the High Court in a ‘writ of certiorari’ u/Art. 226 of Constitution of India. [Paras 12, 13, 22, 23] Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Writ of certiorari – Settled principles of law: Held: The writ of certiorari being a writ of high prerogative, should not be invoked on mere asking – The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court is not to review or reweigh the evidence to adjudicate unless warranted – The jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant – It also ought not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion interfering with a finding unless perverse – The High Court in a writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the impugned finding – Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in the case at hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee and re-agitation of challenge on such grounds ought not have been entertained by High Court in a routine manner. [Para 17] Case Law Cited Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others [1994] Suppl. 3 SCR 50 : (1994) 6 SCC 241; Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union [2024] 4 S.C.R. 123 Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. State of Maharashtra and Other and Another [2000] 2 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.