VILAS DINKAR BHAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 10-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
VILAS DINKAR BHAT
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2095 of 2007)
AUGUST 10, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Appellant approached the
Committee concerned as also the High Court for a declaration that
by birth he belongs to “Thakar” caste, a Schedule Tribe – Claim
dismissed – Held: Committee though considered some documents
filed by the appellant but did not consider all the documents on
which the appellant had placed reliance – High Court in its writ
jurisdiction declined to go into the merits of the writ petition – When
a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary,
in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case
may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to
apply its mind to entire evidence and record its reasoned findings
whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it – This principle was
not followed by the Committee– Case remanded to the Committee
for considering it afresh – Order of High Court and the Committee
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Committee though considered some
documents filed by the appellant but did not consider all the
documents on which the appellant had placed reliance. The High
Court in its writ jurisdiction declined to go into the merits of the
writ petition stating that since the issue involves questions of
fact, it was not possible to examine the case on facts in its writ
jurisdiction. It was more so when the Committee probed the issue
in detail on facts. When a party relies upon any evidence, whether
it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/
Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the
original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire
documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for
proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether
accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the
1056
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1056
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in
accordance with law while deciding the case. This principle was
not followed by the Committee while considering the appellant’s
case. The case is remanded to the Committee for reconsideration
of the appellant’s case on its merits in accordance with law.  [Paras
10-12]  [1058-E-H; 1059-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2095
of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2004 and 11.12.2006
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.7518/
2002 and Review Petition  No. 2982/2006 respectively.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Shakul R. Ghatole,
Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 12.07.2004 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.7518 of 2002
and the judgment and order dated 11.12.2006 in Review Petition No.2982
of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and also the
Review Petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. Few facts need to be mentioned to appreciate the short issue
involved in the appeal.
3. The question arises in this appeal is about the caste of the
appellant-whether the appellant belongs to a caste, known as “Thakar”-
a Schedule Tribe, or not.
4. According to the appellant, he by birth belongs to “Thakar”
caste which is a Schedule Tribe and, therefore, he is entitled to claim a
declaration to that effect in his favour.
5. For claiming this declaration, the appellant approached to the
Committee concerned and also the High Court of Bombay twice but his
claim suffered dismissal before the Committee and the High Court in
the writ petition on both the occasions giving rise to filing of this appeal
by way of special leave against the order of the High Court.
VILAS DINKAR BHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
6.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was essentially
one.  His argument is that though the appellant had filed as many as 50
documents in support of his case to prove that he belongs to a caste
“Thakar” but unfortunately neither the Committee and nor the High Court
examined the documents in their proper perspective in their respective
jurisdiction and, the

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