# 12 S.C.R. 805 --+ SHANTIDEVI KAIVlALESHKUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 12 S.C.R. 805
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-08-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5243 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari, Harjit Singh Bedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/12-s-c-r-805-shantidevi-kaivlaleshkumar-yadav-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-23749
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Administrative Law:
Principles of natural justice - Case before Caste Scrutiny c
Committee - Conclusion of hearing for orders - Thereafter, Caste
Certificate Registercalled, for inspection andrepresentative from
office of Tehsildar, for recording statement, without notice to
appellants - Held: It amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice, equity and good conscience ...., Matter remitted to. Caste
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the case afresh.
0
'
JrAfter closure of the hearing of the case for orders
before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Certificate
Register and the representative from the Office of
Tehsildar were called without notice to the appellant. E
Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition which was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court
~'"'
HELD: In the impugned judgment, there is no F
discussion regarding the main grievance of the appellant
why the Caste Certificate Register was called for
inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the
representative from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay
City was recorded on 7.11.2003 after the conclusion of G
-+-.
the hearing. Respondent could not give any satisfactory
'--.,,/ __.
reply why the caste register was called for inspection
and the statements· of the representatives of the Office of
the Tehsildar were recorded after the conclusion of the
'605
H
·-·
-···· ···-· ..
(,
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
1
A hearing withoqt any notice td the appellant. In
consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity,
good conscience and fairness, the impugned judgments
of the High Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee are
B
sef aside-. iParas 6 to 8] [807-8-E]

## Text

(2008) 12 S.C.R. 805
--+
SHANTIDEVI KAIVlALESHKUMAR YADAV
A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5243 of 2008)
AUGUST 26, 2008
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Administrative Law:
Principles of natural justice - Case before Caste Scrutiny c
Committee - Conclusion of hearing for orders - Thereafter, Caste
Certificate Registercalled, for inspection andrepresentative from
office of Tehsildar, for recording statement, without notice to
appellants - Held: It amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice, equity and good conscience ...., Matter remitted to. Caste
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the case afresh.
0
'
JrAfter closure of the hearing of the case for orders
before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Certificate
Register and the representative from the Office of
Tehsildar were called without notice to the appellant. E
Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition which was
dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court
~'"'
HELD: In the impugned judgment, there is no F
discussion regarding the main grievance of the appellant
why the Caste Certificate Register was called for
inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the
representative from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay
City was recorded on 7.11.2003 after the conclusion of G
-+-.
the hearing. Respondent could not give any satisfactory
'--.,,/ __.
reply why the caste register was called for inspection
and the statements· of the representatives of the Office of
the Tehsildar were recorded after the conclusion of the
'605
H
·-·
-···· ···-· ..
(,
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 12 S.C.R.
1
A hearing withoqt any notice td the appellant. In
consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity,
good conscience and fairness, the impugned judgments
of the High Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee are
B
sef aside-. iParas 6 to 8] [807-8-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5243
of 2008
From the final Judgment ar;td Order dated 14.10.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition
c No. 9231of 2003
Harish N. Salve, Sushil Karanjkar and K.N. Rai. for the
Appellant.
. · · Aparajita Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjay Kharde, Asha
G. Nair, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vikram, Vishwajit
D Singh! C.K. Sasi, Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Rameshwar Prasad
1
Goyal, . .P.R. Ramasesh, R~hul Gupta, Reema Sharma, Siddharth
Choudhary and Bhargava V. Dasai for the Respondents. . .
'}"he Ju~gment of the Cou·rt was delivered by
E
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave- granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court.of Judicature at Bombay dated 14.10.2005 delivered in
Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2003.
F
3. The main grieva11c;;e which has been highlighted by the
learned counsel for the appellant is regarding non-observance of
the principles of natural justice. The appellant submitted that hearing
.of the c;ase was closed for orders before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee on 29 .. 9.2003~hereafter, without notice to the.appellant,
G ·ca~te Qertificate Register was called on
28.10.2003 and
reptesen_tatives from the Office of the Tehsildar were called on
7 .11' .2004. This approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is -
clearly violative of the basic principles of natural justice.
---"''"' ... ;~,"'-··'
4. According to the appellant, this grievance was clearly
H articulated before the Division Bencli'"of·the High Court, but!~ ..
/
+
~ -·
SHANTIDEVI KAMALESHKUMAR YADAV v. STATE
807
OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
did not deal with this aspect of the matter, therefore, in the
A
interest of justice the matter should be remanded to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the matter afresh after hearing
the counsel for the parties.
5. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the
appellant issued notice limited to the question as to whether
B
the matter be remanded or not.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length
and carefully perused the documents on record. In the impugned
judgment, there is no discussion regarding the main grievance
C
of the appellant why the Caste Certificate Register was called
for inspection on 28.10.2003 and the statement of the
representative from the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay City
was recorded on 7.11.2003 after the conclusion of the hearing.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents at o
length but he could not give any satisfactory reply why the caste
register was called for inspection and the statements of the
representatives of the Office of the Tehsildar, Bombay were
recorded after the conclusion of the hearing without any notice
to the appellant.
8. In consonance with the principles of natural justice,
equity; good conscience and fairness, we are compelled to set
aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Caste
Scrutiny Committee.
·
E
9. Consequently, we remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny
F
Committee to decide the case afresh after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties. The Caste Scrutiny Committee must
ensure that no hearing or deliberation takes place after the
conclusion of hearing without notice to the appellant.
10. The matter has been pending for several years,
therefore, we request the Caste Scrutiny Committee to dispose
of this case as expeditiously as possible. No further directions
are necessary. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G
D.G.
Appeal disposed of.
H