caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7442 OF 2021
Rushikesh Bharat Garud …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11536 of 2021, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which
the appellant herein challenged the order passed by Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik (for short, ‘Scrutiny Committee’),
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.12.10
16:00:39 IST
Reason:
invalidating the caste certificate issued to the appellant, the original writ
petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
1
2. We have heard Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned Advocate appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the
State of Maharashtra and the Scrutiny Committee.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that before the High Court the appellant heavily relied upon
the validity certificates issued to his father Bharat Nagu Garud dated
14.01.2005 as well as to his cousins – Nilima Rohidas Garud dated
9.9.2005; Pravin Rohidas Garud dated 9.9.2005; Priyanka Rohidas
Garud dated 20.09.2005; Rohidas Nago Garud dated 25.05.2011; and
Ramdas Nagu Garud dated 07.12.2012. The aforesaid was also the
case of the appellant herein before the Scrutiny Committee. However,
the Scrutiny Committee while not accepting the above submission
observed that when the appellant’s father’s caste claim was considered,
35 contradictory entries were not placed before the Scrutiny Committee.
Neither were the original validity certificates relied upon by the appellant
produced nor the genealogy. The Scrutiny Committee made identical
observations regarding other validity certificates to the effect that the
adverse entries were not placed on record. However, the fact remains
that at the relevant time those caste certificates were not cancelled by
the Scrutiny Committee.
2
4. Be that as it may. Now, it is the case on behalf of the appellant
that the cases of the father of the appellant and his cousins have been
re-opened and show cause notices have been issued to show cause
why their caste certificates be not cancelled. Therefore, the validity of
the caste certificates in favour of the father of the appellant and in favour
of his cousins is at large before the Security Committee. Therefore, it
will be appropriate if the cases of all, namely, father of the appellant,
cousins of the appellant and the appellant herein be considered
together, to avoid any conflicting orders.
5. In view of the above and without expressing anything on the
validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant, we set
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and
remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the validity of
the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant afresh along with
the cases of his father and his cousins, namely, Bharat Nagu Garud,
Nilima Rohidas Garud, Pravin Rohidas Garud, Priyanka Rohidas Garud,
Rohidas Nago Garud and Ramdas Nagu Garud. The Scrutiny
Committee to pass fresh order/s in accordance with law and on its own
merits and on the basis of the material available on record and/or that
may be produced and pass a speaking order at the earliest, preferably
within a period of three months from today.
3
6. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that this Court has not gone
into the merits of the case at all and has not observed anything on the
validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant.
7. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
DECEMBER 10, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
4
Comments