- Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Singh Khehar
- Appellant: Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan
- Respondent: The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7728 Of 2012
Issue
- Whether the appellant belongs to Bhil Tadvi Tribe?
- If the respondent is in power to question the appellant.?
- Should the appellant be subjected to cross-examination of the witness?
Facts
- The appellant filed an affidavit in the desire of declare himself as part of a Schedule Tribe, Bhil Tadvi, submitted the documents for the same and ascertained a job in the Municipal Corporation for the post of Senior Clerk.
- After a time-lapse of 9 years, the respondent had alleged that appellant had forged the documents relating to the latter belonging to Schedule Tribe in order to manifest the job position.
- It has been alleged that the appellant has been professing the religion of
Islam and cannot possibly be of Schedule Tribe category. - The Scrutiny Committee rejected the application observing that it had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate, as there is no statutory provision that provides for the same.
- Respondent files a writ petition in the HC of Bombay, praying for squashing the previous order and directing the Scrutiny Committee to hold a de novo enquiry with respect to the caste certificate
- The committee was directed to hear all the parties concerned with the accordance of the law in regard to the allegation.
Appellant's Arguments
- Since the respondent does not belong to any reserved category, in fact belongs to General category, does not have a right, or locus standi, to challenge the appellant's certificate.
- It was further stated that, even after the directions given by the Court, the Scrutiny Committee failed to endure with the principles of natural justice because appellant was denied the chance to cross-examine witnesses.
- Also, in context of the above statement, no order was passed with respect to his application for recalling such witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. The affidavit filed by the Scrutiny Committee did not make it clear, whether or not the appellant was permitted to cross- examine witnesses.
- It was stated that the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee were in contravention of the statutory requirements in accordance to several acts and thereby all hearings stand vitiated.
- The appellant was solely dependent on the documents which were undoubtedly very old and hence their legitimacy should not have been compromised.
- The report submitted by the vigilance cell also stated vividly that the characteristics and traits of the appellant matched with the Bhil Tadvi tribe.
- Therefore, the accusations on the appellant were of the sole purpose to harass him and that High Court had committed a mistake by not deciding the issue in accordance to locus standi.
Respondent's Arguments
- The appellant has been issued the document of Schedule Tribes on the grounds of mis-representation and secured a job in the municipal corporation.
- The appellant has been professing the religion of Islam; therefore, it is evident that he does not belong to the Bhil Tadvi Tribe.
- To hold a De Novo Enquiry in regard to the appellant's caste certificate.
- Respondent had filed an affidavit in the Court in which he claims that his occupation is that of a social worker. The allegations against the appellant stating that he obtained the said caste certificate fraudulently, have been repeated.
- Even after calling the appellant for further enquiry before the Scrutiny Committee, it is observed that the appellant never showed up
- The appellant had dis-engaged himself from appearing before this Court, or any other court, or Committee, since the case has been in such a state.
- The Respondent had challenged the legitimacy of the caste certificate under the influence of acting as a socially active person, taking a stand for those who had been deprived of their right of being considered for the above said position, the Respondent had acted seriously and brought the material before the Scrutiny Committee to show that the earlier decision was factually incorrect.
Judgement
- It was decided that the Respondent's allegations were not in public interest but only to abuse the process of the court and to harass the Appellant. The Respondent has been restrained from intervening any further in this issue or be a party in this case.
Relevant Paragraphs
- A person who has suffered a legal injury can challenge any order in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is ascertained either for the purpose of enforcing a legal right, or when there are allegations by an appellant that there has been a breach of legal duty on the part of the concerned authorities. Moreover, there should be a right available for the enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is taken in consideration. The Court can enforce the performance of a legal duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the authoritative of a person, provided that the concerned person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to be confirmed upon.
- A 'legal right” refers to a power/authority pertaining to the legal rules. It can be defined as an advantage, or a benefit given by the rule of law.
- The expression, 'person aggrieved” does not include a person who takes in consideration that he/she is suffering from a psychological or an imaginary injury
- In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, a precedent can be taken by the court that if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of another person.
- A Constitution Bench of the particular Court in State of P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given an opportunity to ascertain all relevant evidence upon which the party relies. The evidence/witnesses of the opposite party should be taken in his presence and that it should be given an opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses.
- The Respondent does not evidently belong to the Scheduled Tribes category. The opportunity of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimacy to be considered for a particular position in a respectable job.
- After considering a number of different opinions and cases, it was determined that the right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice. Contravention of such may lead to the appeal getting vitiated.
- The Court examined a matter in a vivid perspective in Madhuri Patil v. Addl Commissioner, it was stated that spurious tribes and persons not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category were seizing away the reservation benefits that have been made available to genuine category people, and that they were being falsely deprived of their rights on the basis of erroneous caste certificates at a subsequent stage such incompetent person, after getting the chance at the employment, were adopting such fallacious tactics, the court issued a large number of directions to investigate such cases of false claims.
- The Appellant had raised the grievance that the evidence of a number of people had been recorded by the Scrutiny Committee without his knowledge, and that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses that were examined by the other party; therefore, he was unable to lead a proper defence.
