SANDEEP SUBHASH PARATE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 24-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SANDEEP SUBHASH PARA TE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-Article I 42-Application by student for a 
Bachelor course of a University by claiming himself to be a member of 
C 'Halba' community, a Scheduled Tribe community-Caste Scrutiny Committee 
invalidated the caste certificate of the student-High Court, by an interim 
order in Writ Petition, directed the University to grant admission to the 
student-High Court remitted the matter back to the Committee for fresh 
scrunity-Committee rejected the claim of the student-Another Writ Petition 
filed by the student was admitted by the High Court-Student, in the mean 
D time, completed his course and appeared for the examination-High Court 
dismissed the Writ Petition-Withholding of the degree and the marksheet of 
the student by the University-Held, on/acts, student applied for the admission 
in the University under a bona fide belief that the belongs to Scheduled Tribe 
community-Sllident is allowed to obtain his degree from the University 
E subject to payment of Rs. I lakh to the State-Doctrine of proportionality 
applied 
Appellant applied for admission for a Bachelor degree course in 
respondent no. 4 University by claiming himself to be a member of'Halba' 
community, a Scheduled Tribe community, A Caste Scrutiny Committee 
F invalidated the caste certificate granted in favour of the appellant. The 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court passed an 
interim order directing the University to grant admission to the appellant. 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and remitted the matter back to 
the Scrutiny Committe. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the 
appellant. The appellant filed another Writ Petition challenging the rejection 
G of his claim by the Scrutiny Committee. The High Court admitted the Writ 
Petition without granting any interim relief. In the meantime, the appellant 
continued with his studies and appeared for the examination. The appellant 
filed an application before the High Court for a direction to the University to 
supply him the degree and the marksheet. The Writ Petition was dismissed 
H 
282 
-
-
SANDEEP SUBHASH PARA Tb. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
283 
on merits and no order was passed on the application. The review application A . 
filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant prayed the Court to give a direction 
to the University to grant him the degree since he has completed his course 
in the meantime. 
The respondents contended that the appellant has not made out any case 
for obtaining any relief from the High Court having failed to show his 
bonajide; and that the ap.µellant is not entitled to any equitable relief since 
he has played fraud on the statutory authorities. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A person is not entitled to a reliefonly because an interim 
order was passed in his favour but the premise on which such an interim 
order was passed would assume some significance in the instant case in so 
B 
c 
far as a presumption may be drawn that primafacie the appellant was not D 
considered guilty of commission of fraud and the possibility that the question 
in regard to his status as a member of Scheduled Tribe as the isue as to 
whether 'Koshti-Halbas' were members of Scheduled Tribe had not been 
finally determined, was in the mind of the court. He might have deprived a 
genuine student of reserved category from obtaining admission, but, in a case 
of this nature, what is necessary to bear in mind is the bonafide or otherwise E 
of the appellant He might have been under a bonafide belief that Koshti-Halbas 
were members of a Scheduled Tribe. 1288-E-H] 
State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., [2001] 1 SCC 4; Kumari 
Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and 
Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241; Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash Mandivikar and F 
Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690; Ram Saran v. /.G. of Police, C.R.P.F. and Ors., [2006] 
2 SCALE 131; R. Vishwanath Pillai etc. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [2004] 2 
SCC 105; Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., [2005) 
7 SCC 690; L/C of India v. Sushi/, [2006] 2 SCC 471 and Employees State 
Insurance Corporation v. Distilleries and Chemical Mazdoor Union and Ors., G 
[2006] 7 SCALE 171, referred to. 
1.2. This Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdictio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.