ANAND SHANKARRAO KOLHATKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr.S.R.Narnaware for the petitioners, learned Advocate General Mr. Birendra Saraf with Adv. Ms Aakanksha Saxena with learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. A.S. Fulzele and AGP Mr. P.P. Pendke for the respondents-State, learned Advocate Ms Mugdha Chandurkar for respondents-Union of India and learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Deshpande for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP No.4759/2021.

(2.) Since the issue involved in these petitions is similar, the same are decided by this common order.

(3.) The present petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that the respondent No.6-Scrutiny Committee has no legislative competence under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, De notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2000" for the sake of brevity). The vires of the said Act is challenged as unconstitutional, unreasonable and illegal on account of which the respondent No.6 has no jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the central government employees like the petitioners and a prayer is also made to declare the Act of 2000 more particularly Sec. 6(1) and Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003 as unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary and in contravention of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ku.Madhuri Patil, reported in (1994)6 S.C.C. 241 : AIR 1995 SC 94 and in the case of Dayaram v. Sudhir Bantham, reported in 2012(2) Bom.C.R. 684(S.C.) : 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 414.