SHANTIDEVI KAMALESHKUMAR YADAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 26-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008) 12 S.C.R. 805 
--+ 
SHANTIDEVI KAIVlALESHKUMAR YADAV 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5243 of 2008) 
AUGUST 26, 2008 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Administrative Law: 
Principles of natural justice - Case before Caste Scrutiny c 
Committee - Conclusion of hearing for orders - Thereafter, Caste 
Certificate Registercalled, for inspection andrepresentative from 
office of Tehsildar, for recording statement, without notice to 
appellants - Held: It amounts to violation of principles of natural 
justice, equity and good conscience ...., Matter remitted to. Caste 
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the case afresh. 
0 
' 
Jr-
After closure of the hearing of the case for orders 
before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Certificate 
Register and the representative from the Office of 
Tehsildar were called without notice to the appellant. E 
Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition which was 
dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court 
~'"' 
HELD: In the impugned judgment, there is no F 
discussion regarding the main grievance of the appellant 
why the Caste Certificate Register was called for 
inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the 
representative from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay 
City was recorded on 7.11.2003 after the conclusion of G 
-+-. 
the hearing. Respondent could not give any satisfactory 
'--.,,/ __. 
reply why the caste register was called for inspection 
and the statements· of the representatives of the Office of 
the Tehsildar were recorded after the conclusion of the 
'605 
H 
·-· 
-···· ···-· .. 
(, 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
1 
A hearing withoqt any notice td the appellant. In 
consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity, 
good conscience and fairness, the impugned judgments 
of the High Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee are 
B 
sef aside-. iParas 6 to 8] [807-8-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5243 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment ar;td Order dated 14.10.2005 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition 
c No. 9231of 2003 
Harish N. Salve, Sushil Karanjkar and K.N. Rai. for the 
Appellant. 
. · · Aparajita Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjay Kharde, Asha 
G. Nair, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vikram, Vishwajit 
D Singh! C.K. Sasi, Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Rameshwar Prasad 
1 
Goyal, . .P.R. Ramasesh, R~hul Gupta, Reema Sharma, Siddharth 
Choudhary and Bhargava V. Dasai for the Respondents. . . 
'}"he Ju~gment of the Cou·rt was delivered by 
E 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave- granted. 
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High 
Court.of Judicature at Bombay dated 14.10.2005 delivered in 
Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2003. 
F 
3. The main grieva11c;;e which has been highlighted by the 
learned counsel for the appellant is regarding non-observance of 
the principles of natural justice. The appellant submitted that hearing 
.of the c;ase was closed for orders before the Caste Scrutiny 
Committee on 29 .. 9.2003~hereafter, without notice to the.appellant, 
G ·ca~te Qertificate Register was called on 
28.10.2003 and 
reptesen_tatives from the Office of the Tehsildar were called on 
7 .11' .2004. This approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is -
clearly violative of the basic principles of natural justice. 
---"''"' ... ;~,"'-··' 
4. According to the appellant, this grievance was clearly 
H articulated before the Division Bencli'"of·the High Court, but!~ .. 
/ 
+ 
~ -· 
SHANTIDEVI KAMALESHKUMAR YADAV v. STATE 
807 
OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 
did not deal with this aspect of the matter, therefore, in the 
A 
interest of justice the matter should be remanded to the Caste 
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the matter afresh after hearing 
the counsel for the parties. 
5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the 
appellant issued notice limited to the question as to whether 
B 
the matter be remanded or not. 
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length 
and carefully perused the documents on record. In the impugned 
judgment, there is no discussion regarding the main grievance 
C 
of the appellant why the Caste Certificate Register was called 
for inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the 
representative from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay City 
was recorded on 7.11.2003 after the conclusion of the hearing. 
7

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