LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR & ANR. OCTOBER 31, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Administrative law: Quasi Judicial body: Caste Scrutiny Committee-Cancellation of caste certificate-Holding of enquiry by Committee in deciding the validity of certificate-Permissibility of-Held: Permissible-Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body and set A B c up for a specific purpose-Evidence to be adduced in a matter before it not restricted to admission of documentary evidence only-It may take oral evidence-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders Act, 1976- D Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. Evidence-Nature of evidence to be adduced by Quasi judicial body- E Discussed Judicial restraint: Sweeping remarks by judges-Observation by High Court that the job of caste scrutiny should be assigned to trained Judicial Officers and not to p bureaucrats who are not legally trained to appreciate evidence in correct perspective-Held: Such sweeping remarks without adequate material on record unwarranted-Judges should exercise restraint before making such observations which have a far reaching effect-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 235. Administration of justice: Justice delivery system-Receipt of letters from party urging the Court not to remit the matter back to the High Court-Held: Such practice of writing letters to the judges when matter pending judgment deprecated. 105 G H 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A Respondent claimed to be member of Schedule Tribe belonging to Thakur community as envisaged in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders Act, 1976. He obtained appointments and admission in various institutions on the basis of ST Certificate issued to him. The Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of Madhuri Patel · B Case*, opined that he did not belong to the said community and in fact belongs to Kshatriya Thakur caste, whereupon his ST Certificate was cancelled. Appellate authority upheld the order of Scrutiny Committee. Respondent preferred Writ Petition before High Court. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction to go into C the question by holding an enquiry that he belonged to Kshatriya Thakur Caste and the Committee could get itself satisfied only on the basis of documentary evidence and no oral evidence would be admissible. The High Court further directed that the job of caste scrutiny should be assigned to trained Judicial 'Officers and not to bureaucrats and these committees should be brought under the control and supervision and purview of Article 235 of the Constitution. D Aggrieved by the order, State filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court for fresh consideration on merits, the Court HELD: 1. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It E has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional purpose and is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions oflndian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be F restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. Moreover the nature of evid.ence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curt~iled. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judidal body should appreciate evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow adduction of oral evidence at all. It was furthermore not proper to G suggest that all such bodies should be brought within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitution oflndia or only judicial officers should be appointed. 1111-E-H) _ 2. As judges, restraint should be exercised before making such observations which would have a far reaching effect. Such directions could H not have been, issued in a matter where the State had not been called upon to .. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RA VI PRAKASHBABULALSING PARMAR 107 make its comments. No empirical study as r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.