Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs State Of Maharashtra .

Vilas Dinkar Bhat ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 12.07.2004 passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Date: 2018.08.10 17:14:09 IST Reason: 1 Petition No.7518 of 2002 and the judgment and

order dated 11.12.2006 in Review Petition No.2982

of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ

Petition and also the Review Petition filed by the

appellant herein.

2) Few facts need to be mentioned to appreciate

the short issue involved in the appeal.

3) The question arises in this appeal is about the

caste of the appellant­whether the appellant belongs

to a caste, known as “Thakar”­ a Schedule Tribe, or

not.

4) According to the appellant, he by birth belongs

to “Thakar” caste which is a Schedule Tribe and,

therefore, he is entitled to claim a declaration to

that effect in his favour.

5) For claiming this declaration, the appellant

approached to the Committee concerned and also

the High Court of Bombay twice but his claim

2 suffered dismissal before the Committee and the

High Court in the writ petition on both the

occasions giving rise to filing of this appeal by way

of special leave against the order of the High Court.

6) Submission of learned counsel for the

appellant was essentially one. His argument is that

though the appellant had filed as many as 50

documents in support of his case to prove that he

belongs to a caste “Thakar” but unfortunately

neither the Committee and nor the High Court

examined the documents in their proper perspective

in their respective jurisdiction and, therefore, the

matter needs to be reconsidered by the Committee

afresh.

7) Learned counsel especially brought to our

notice the documents at pages 30 to 33 of the SLP

paper book, which, according to learned counsel,

are in his favour but none of these documents were

3 considered either by the Committee or the High

Court.

8) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent

(State) supported the impugned order of the High

Court.

9) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting

aside the impugned order and also the order of the

Committee, remand the case to the Committee for

fresh consideration of the appellant's case on its

merit.

10) On perusal of the Committee's order, we find

that the Committee though considered some

documents filed by the appellant but did not

consider all the documents on which the appellant

had placed reliance. The High Court in its writ

jurisdiction declined to go into the merits of the writ

4 petition stating that since the issue involves

questions of fact, it is not possible to examine the

case on facts in its writ jurisdiction. It is more so

when the Committee probed the issue in detail on

facts.

11) In our opinion, when a party relies upon any

evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in

support of his case, the

Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be,

and especially the original Court is under an

obligation to apply its mind to the entire

documentary evidence on which the party has

placed reliance for proving his case and record its

reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence

or rejecting it. What is important is the

consideration of entire evidence adduced by the

parties in accordance with law while deciding the

case.

5

12) It is for this reason, we consider it proper to

remand the case to the Committee for

reconsideration of the appellant's case on its merits

in accordance with law keeping in view our

observation made supra because we find that this

principle was not followed by the Committee while

considering the appellant's case.

13) The Committee will decide the matter after

affording an opportunity to the appellant strictly in

accordance with law without being influenced by

any of our observation on merits which we have

refrained to make once formed an opinion to

remand the case to the Committee.

6

14) The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly

allowed. Impugned order and the order of the

Committee are set aside. The case is remanded to

the Committee for its disposal afresh, as directed

above, within six months.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi;

August 10, 2018

7