AMRUTLAL MANOHAR KANJARIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Mr.Sonawane waives notice for the Respondents. As short question is involved, taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

(3.) The report of the Secretary, Social Justice and Social Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 27.2.2013 has been placed before us. The same refers to the factual position already placed on record by the Chairperson of the Committee vide affidavit dated 23.1.2013. In other words, the said factual position after enquiry has been found to be correct. What is, however, not appreciated by the Department is whether such casual, lackadaisical and mechanical approach in deciding an important issue dealing with the caste claim of a person, who would thereafter claim reservation on the basis of the said decision, can be countenanced at all. In that, the Chairman in his affidavit as well as the Secretary in the report have gone on record that the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Shri Yeole Patil, was not present during the hearing of the proceedings for invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner herein. It has been admitted that the Chairman of the Committee had to leave his office in the midst of the hearing of the proceedings to attend to some other urgent official work. It is unfathomable that such person can claim to have heard the entire arguments and, therefore, competent to sign the final judgement or decision of the Committee. In the first place, it is an act of commission or omission of the Chairman in signing the final decision, to give an impression that he was present during the entire hearing. At the same time, the Department ought not to take this lapse so casually as is noted in the report of the Secretary that nothing adverse has been noticed. That means that even the Department is oblivious to the necessity of affording oral hearing by the Committee validly constituted and the cardinal principle of only the person who has heard the arguments can decide the case. For, the presence of all the members of the Committee during the hearing is not an empty formality. In the present case, the lapse has been committed by the member of the Scrutiny Committee no less than the Chairman himself. This is not only a casual approach but plainly a case of violation of principles of audi alteram partem. If the Chairman was required to attend to some other urgent official work, should have deferred the hearing of the matter and in any case, should not have signed the document (decision of the Committee), to give an impression that he was present during the hearing before a validly constituted Committee. Even this is a serious matter which ought to have received due attention of the Department. The fact that the Committee is now willing to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh, can be no reason to overlook the lapse committed by the Chairman of the Committee, which is cardinal and inviolable. It is not unknown that similar grievance has been made before this Court in other cases heard by the Scrutiny Committee in the past. It is high time that the Secretary of the Department issues firm instructions to all concerned that during the hearing of the proceedings for issuance of Caste Validation Certificate, such casual approach of any member of the Scrutiny Committee will not be taken lightly as it is a case bordering on dereliction of duty and unbecoming of the officer bestowed with such high responsibility of pronouncing on the issue of caste claim. It must be made amply clear that affording hearing to the parties during the enquiry proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee is not an empty formality. The enquiry regarding the caste claim cannot and ought not to be done mechanically. The members of the Scrutiny Committee are not only expected to conduct the proceedings in proper and orderly manner by affording full opportunity to the parties appearing before them but also pay complete and uninterrupted attention during the hearing; and the decision is taken by the members of the Committee, who were present during such hearing. If the quorum of the Committee is not available, it is but appropriate to defer the hearing instead of doing paper compliance of taking formal signature of the member who was not present during the hearing. The procedure adopted in this case or not consistent with the Rules in vogue must be unreservedly discontinued and should not be repeated in future. We hope that the Secretary of the Department will be well advised to forthwith issue appropriate directions to all concerned to adhere to the basic norms and principles enunciated to fulfill the inviolable norms of audi alteram partem. We leave the matter at that.