2000 JTR(SC) 1144
2002 1 BomCR(SC) 565 ; 2000 10 JT 280 ; 2007 12 SCC 800 ; 2008 2 SCC(L&S) 960 ; 2000 7 SLT 76 ; 2001 4 Supreme 461
2001(4) Supreme 461
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B. Shah & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Baswant -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4124 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20174/98)
Decided on 21-7-2000
IMPORTANT POINT
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee consisting of two members only is not a valid Constitution of Committee.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.16
(A) The impugned order is challenged before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court examines the procedural validity of the constitution of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, emphasizing that such a Committee must consist of three members as per the precedent set in Madhuri Patil (Kumar) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development, read in conjunction with the principles governing administrative quasi-judicial bodies under Article 16. The State Government's subsequent constitution of a properly constituted Committee renders the earlier order void ab initio.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of a proper and valid constitution of administrative bodies before they can pass binding orders, the efficacy of directions to re-evaluate decisions rendered without proper authority, and the inherent power of the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and to correct administrative illegality.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition summarily. It was later revealed that the Committee consisted of only two members, which was not in accordance with the mandated decision. Consequently, a new Committee was formed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original Committee was improperly constituted, which vitiated the impugned order. Setting aside the order and directing the reconstituted Committee to re-examine the case was deemed appropriate.
Issues:
Whether an order passed by an improperly constituted Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is legally effective and whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside such an order and direct a fresh determination.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial body which is not constituted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or precedent is void. The High Court, under Article 226, can direct the relevant authority to re-examine the matter in compliance with the law.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide afresh within three months.
(A) The impugned order is challenged before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court examines the procedural validity of the constitution of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, emphasizing that such a Committee must consist of three members as per the precedent set in Madhuri Patil (Kumar) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development, read in conjunction with the principles governing administrative quasi-judicial bodies under Article 16. The State Government's subsequent constitution of a properly constituted Committee renders the earlier order void ab initio.
(B) Key legal principles include the requirement of a proper and valid constitution of administrative bodies before they can pass binding orders, the efficacy of directions to re-evaluate decisions rendered without proper authority, and the inherent power of the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and to correct administrative illegality.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition summarily. It was later revealed that the Committee consisted of only two members, which was not in accordance with the mandated decision. Consequently, a new Committee was formed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original Committee was improperly constituted, which vitiated the impugned order. Setting aside the order and directing the reconstituted Committee to re-examine the case was deemed appropriate.
Issues:
Whether an order passed by an improperly constituted Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is legally effective and whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to set aside such an order and direct a fresh determination.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial body which is not constituted in accordance with the prescribed procedure or precedent is void. The High Court, under Article 226, can direct the relevant authority to re-examine the matter in compliance with the law.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide afresh within three months.
ScrutinyCommittee - This case was referred to establish the requirement for the proper constitution of a Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee with the correct number of members.
Citation - This citation is provided as a parallel citation for the reported judgment.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the Order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (respondent No. 4). The writ petition was rejected summarily by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order. That order is challenged in this appeal.
4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, it has been pointed out that respondent No. 1 firstly constituted Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee consisting of two members only. Hence, the constitution of the Committee was not in accordance with the decision rendered by this Court in Madhuri Patil (Kumar) v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development1. Thereafter, the State Government has constituted a new Committee consisting of three members. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4, the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
5. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad is directed to decide afresh whether the caste certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate and confirmed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad by his order dated 18.11.1995 was justified. The Committee is directed to pass appropriate order within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
Appeal allowed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Baswant v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2001(4) Supreme 461 : 2001 (10) JT 280 : 2001 (2) SCSLJ 147
00025