SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL versus DR. MAHESH MADHAV GOSAVI & ORS. AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 09-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHIV AJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL 
A 
v .. 
DR. MAHESH MADHAV GOSA VJ & ORS. AND VICE VERSA 
DECEMBER 9, 1986 
B 
(R.S. PATHAK, SABY ASACHI MUKllARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Evidence-Admission 
of addiiional · evidence, 
principle of-
1' 
Admissibility of evidence as to "similar fact"-Ajfidavits evidence-Value of 
Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIX Ru/e3 Malafides-Allegation of 
C 
malafides against men in power-Court/ duty to view such allegations vis-a-
£ 
vis purity in public life, explained. 
-,a 
Post-graduate medical examinatwn in Maharashtra-A/legation of 
manipulation in the grade sheets of M.D. (Gynae) examination to clear the 
candidate, a daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra-Adverse 
D 
remarks against the Chief Minister, whether justified as a finding of fact or as a 
comment based on no evidence-Judic.'al pronouncements and duty of the 
Judges. 
Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi app.,llant in CA 4453/86 and respondent 
in CA 4452/86 was a failed candidate at the M.D. examination in the 
E 
speciality of Gynaecology and Obstetric.1 held in the year 1985. He filed a writ 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of 
Bombay challenging the results of the 1\1.D. examination held in November' 
85. He alleged that favouritism was shown by one Dr. Rawal who went to the 
extent of tampering with grade shee1s of the examinees so as to clear 
f 
unsuccessful candidates and in particular Smt. Chandrakala Patil daughter of 
the Chief Minister of Maharashtra app.,llant in CA 4452/86 and respondent 
in cross appeal CA 4453/86 . .In support of the writ petition alleging how the 
malpractice took place, he filed an affidavit (hearsay evidence) of one Dr. 
Manikant Mishra, who is supposed to have heard certain talks that took place 
between Dr. Rawal and Smt. Chandrnkala Patil at Dr. Rawals' Chambers 
and that what the deponent heard came to be proved by the M.D. (Gynae) 
G 
results in which one Dr. Smita Thakl<ar and Smt. Chandrakala Patil who 
could not clear the said examination thrice were shown to have passed. It was 
alleged that the tampering of the grade sheets were done by Dr. Rawal at the 
behest of the appellant in C.A. 4452/86. The said allegations were refuted by 
the appelldnt Shivaji Rao Patil, Smt. <Chandrakala Patil, his daughter, Dr. 
H Rawal and another Dr. Shah on oath by filing their affidavits. The 
45B 
•
S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI 
459 
~ respondent, though he had verified his petition, did not disclose the so called A 
reliable source of information derived by him. (about the allegations made 
against the appellant & others. 
The learned Single Judge held: (i) that the evidence of Respondent 
Madhav Gosavi as well as of Dr. Mishra were unsatisfactory and unreliable: 
(ii) that it was impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of Dr, Mishra as B 
-
it was not known how he came to contact Dr. Gosavi or why he did not choose 
~ 
to file affidavit tili 28.2.1986 when the appellant Patil had alredy filed his 
affidavit on 26.1.86; (iii) that the allegation and the averments made in 
\ 
paragraph 14-of the writ petition were wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient 
• 
-~ - because the Respondent-petitioner had not disclosed from whom he derived 
them; (iv) that there was tampering with grade sheets ofRespondents4 to.IS C 
by Dr. Rawal; and (v) that in the facts and circumstances of this it could 
-, 
reasonably be inferred that the alteration was done at the behest of the 
appellant in CA 4452/86 and her daughter Chandrakala. 1'.his was because 
Dr. Raw al was an experienced examiner, not young or immature and a person 
like him would not proceed to do a criminal act and tamper with the record of 
the examination on his own with a view merely to please ihe people in power. D 
The risk involved In what Dr. Rawal had done was so enormou~ that it was 
difficult to conceive that he did it on his own. Accordingly he allowed tlJe writ 
petition, passed some structures against Dr. Rawal and the appellant in CA 
4452/86 and gave certain directions about examination ofl2 other candidates 
whose results were also affected by the conduct of Dr. Rawal. 
An application made before the Judge for adducing certain additional 
evidence was rejected. After the judgment the Vice Chancellor and the Chief 
"' 
Minister resigned from their posts. 
Three appeals, No. 214/86 by Dr. Rawal No. 215/86 by Dr. 
. 
Chandrakala Patil and No. 216/86 by the appellant Shivaji Rao Patil, were 
heard an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.