AMBAJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 20th April, 1986, passed by the Divisional Commissioner of Aurangabad, whereby the Divisional Commissioner has cancelled the certificate granted to the petitioner by Taluka Executive Magistrate, Biloli that the petitioner belongs to the caste of Mahadeo Koli. THE said order was passed pursuant to the representation made by the respondents no. 4 to 6 in the form of an appeal, in the year 1984. THE challenge is two fold; firstly that the respondent no. 2 Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal against the grant of certificate at the relevant time and secondly, that the respondents no. 4 to 6 had no locus standi to challenge the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, referring to the notification No. CBC: 1684/2818/[291]/XI dated 23. 1. 1985 and notification No. CBC:1684/[392] D. XI dated 8th March, 1985, submitted that at the relevant time, in view of the said notification the Divisional Commissioner had no authority to entertain the representation against the grant of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned Advocate, the authority which was given to the Divisional Commissioner to hear the appeals against the grant of such certificates by notification No. CBC:168/4366/D. V. dated 29. 10. 1980 was revoked and, therefore, the entire exercise by the respondent no. 3 in entertaining the representation as appeal and cancelling the caste certificate granted in favour of the petitioner is bad in law and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that neither the notification dated 23. 1. 1985, nor dated 8. 3. 1985 revoked the authority of the Divisional Commissioner to hear the appeals in relation to the matters which were already disposed of prior to the notification dated 8th March, 1985. According to the learned Advocates, the representation was admittedly filed in the year 1984 and at the relevant time, the Divisional Commissioner was fully empowered to entertain the said appeal. In any case, according to the learned Advocates, the said two notifications of the year 1985 in any way modifies the notification dated 29. 10. 1980 whereby the appellate jurisdiction was given to the Divisional Commissioner.

(3.) IN the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.