SHANTIDEVI KAMALESHKUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st november, 2003 passed by the Caste Scrutiny committee invalidating the caste certificate given to the petitioner by the appropriate authority. According to the petitioner, this order is liable to be quashed on the following grounds : (1) The order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents relied upon were not confronted to the petitioner and the petitioner was not given opportunity to meet those documents; (2) The entire order as will be disclosed from the operative part rests on issue no. 1, namely, issuance of the certificate by a person not competent and, therefore, there is non application of mind by the committee to the evidence on record, on the basis of which only conclusion regarding the petitioner belonging to caste - Yadav or not can be drawn; (3) The entire order of the committee is vitiated because the enquiry conducted by the vigilance cell is not as per law and the directions issued by the supreme Court of India are violated. They did not conduct enquiry as contemplated by the guidelines and, therefore, substantial injustice is caused to the petitioner by inadequate enquiry by the vigilance cell. When the matter was argued on earlier occasions the statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner does not press prayer clause (a-i) to (a-iv) and consequently only the above mentioned contentions were canvassed. Taking into consideration these submissions it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter is remitted back to the committee to decide it properly on appreciation of entire evidence as it exists on record.

(2.) THESE submissions are resisted by the counsel for the State and other contesting respondents by placing the observations made in the impugned order and pointing out that none of the defects as contended by the petitioner exists in the impugned order. They, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be confirmed.

(3.) WE will consider the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by scrutinising the impugned order. It is, however, necessary to keep in mind the basic limits of jurisdiction which a writ court has in considering challenge to order passed by the competent tribunal. It is accepted principle of law that in writ jurisdiction a writ court does not function as the appellate court to reappreciate and reassess the evidence as is done by the tribunal enjoined with the duty to appreciate evidence. Interference by a writ court is possible in very limited situation. It is possible if the order passed by the competent tribunal is based on no evidence. It is possible if the conclusions drawn by the tribunal on evidence before it are perverse and illegal. It is possible if the conclusions are illegal and result in grave injustice to the person concerned. It is in the light of these accepted principle that we have to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.