Holding

The Caste Scrutiny Committee, as a quasi‑judicial body, may investigate the validity of caste certificates and may take oral evidence, rendering the High Court’s restrictive directives invalid.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against a High Court order that had set aside the cancellation of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate issued to Ravi Prakash BabulalSing Parmar, holding that the Caste Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the certificate and could only consider documentary evidence. The Supreme Court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi‑judicial body created for a specific constitutional purpose and is empowered to conduct enquiries, including taking oral evidence, into the correctness of caste certificates. The Court found the High Court’s restrictive directions – limiting evidence to documents and mandating that such committees be staffed only by judicial officers under Article 235 – to be unwarranted and an overreach. It emphasized that judges must exercise restraint before making sweeping observations about administrative bodies. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, with costs awarded against the respondents.

Issues considered

The jurisdiction and powers of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to inquire into the validity of a Scheduled Tribe certificate and to admit oral evidence.
Whether the High Court erred in directing that only documentary evidence be admissible and that the Committee must be composed of judicial officers under Article 235 of the Constitution.
The propriety of the High Court’s sweeping observations on the functioning of caste scrutiny committees.
The permissibility of parties writing letters to judges while a matter is pending.

Legislation cited

Subjects

quasi‑judicial bodycaste certificateScheduled Tribeevidenceoral evidenceArticle 235judicial restraintreservationfraud on Constitutionadministrative law

Judgment

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
v.
RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR & ANR.

OCTOBER 31, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B

Administrative law:

Quasi Judicial body:
c
Caste Scrutiny Committee-Cancellation of caste certificate-Holding
of enquiry by Committee in deciding the validity of certificate-Permissibility
of-Held: Permissible-Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body and set
up for a specific purpose-Evidence to be adduced in a matter before it not
restricted to admission of documentary evidence only-It may take oral
evidence-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders Act, 1976- D
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of issuance and verification) Caste Certificate Act,
2000.

Evidence-Nature of evidence to be adduced by Quasi judicial body- E
Discussed
Judicial restraint:

Sweeping remarks by judges-Observation by High Court that the job
of caste scrutiny should be assigned to trained Judicial Officers and not to p
bureaucrats who are not legally trained to appreciate evidence in correct
perspective-Held: Such sweeping remarks without adequate material on
record unwarranted-Judges should exercise restraint before making such
observations which have a far reaching effect-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 235.
G
Administration of justice:

Justice delivery system-Receipt of letters from party urging the Court
not to remit the matter back to the High Court-Held: Such practice of
writing letters to the judges when matter pending judgment deprecated.
105 H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Respondent claimed to be member of Schedule Tribe belonging to
Thakur community as envisaged in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders Act, 1976. He obtained appointments and admission in various
institutions on the basis of ST Certificate issued to him.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of Madhuri Patel
·B Case*, opined that he did not belong to the said community and in fact belongs
to Kshatriya Thakur caste, whereupon his ST Certificate was cancelled.
Appellate authority upheld the order of Scrutiny Committee. Respondent
preferred Writ Petition before High Court. High Court allowed the writ
petition holding that the Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction to go into
C the question by holding an enquiry that he belonged to Kshatriya Thakur Caste
and the Committee could get itself satisfied only on the basis of documentary
evidence and no oral evidence would be admissible. The High Court further
directed that the job of caste scrutiny should be assigned to trained Judicial
'Officers and not to bureaucrats and these committees should be brought under
the control and supervision and purview of Article 235 of the Constitution.
D Aggrieved by the order, State filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court for fresh
consideration on merits, the Court

HELD: 1. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It
E has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional
purpose and is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be
bound by the provisions oflndian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for
the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence.
Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be
F restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity
have to take oral evidence. Moreover the nature of evid.ence to be adduced would
vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be
curt~iled. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judidal body should appreciate
evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not
allow adduction of oral evidence at all. It was furthermore not proper to
G suggest that all such bodies should be brought within the purview of Article
235 of the Constitution oflndia or only judicial officers should be appointed.
1111-E-H) _ ..
2. As judges, restraint should be exercised before making such
observations which would have a far reaching effect. Such directions could
H not have been, issued in a matter where the State had not been called upon to
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVI PRAKASHBABULALSING PARMAR 107
make its comments. No empirical study as regards functioning of the Caste A
Scrutiny Committees was carried out. Such sweeping remarks without there
being adequate materials on records were, thus, unwarranted. They are to a
great extent contrary to and inconsistent with the directions issued by this
Court in Madhuri Patil*. [112-A-B)
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal B
Development and Ors,* [1994) 6 SCC 241, referred to.
3. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst
citizens. Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and
reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same
platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an· C
undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of1he Constitution by
·obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the
Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a
fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the
Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not
otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State D
shall be helpless spectator in the matter. [114-F-H)
State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind & Ors., [2001) 1 SCC 4, referred to.
4.1. The approach of the High Court is not correct as it proceeded on
·, the premise that once the surname of Respondent tallied with the name of the E
tribe, which finds mention in one or the other entries of the schedule appended·
to the 1976 Order, the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry
in relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by any
Committee. The observations and directions of the High Court, were not only
contrary to the judgments of the Court but also fall short of the ground
realities. [115-A-B] F
Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE 131;
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor
Union and Ors., (2006) 7 SCALE 171 and Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State.
of Maharashtra & Ors., (2006) 8 SCALE 503, relied on.
Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu and Ors., [1980) 1 sec 621, held G
inapplicable.

Pa/ghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and Anr. v.
State of Kera/a and Anr., [1994) 1 SCC 359; Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure
v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1996] 3 SCC 685; Bank of India and Anr. fl
v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690 and State of
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Manda! (2006) 4 SCC 98, referred
to.

4.2. The High Court although allowed the writ petitions filed by
Respondent herein, did not analyu the evidences relied upon by the Committee
at all. It proceeded principally on the basis that no enquiry was permissible.
B Merit of the matter should be considered afresh by the High Court
[118-F, G]

5. While the matter was pending judgment, this Court received letters
from Respondents urging the Court not to remit the matter back to the High
C Court. These letters were issued presumably having regard to the
observations made during hearing that t.he High Court had not gone into the
merit of the matters. Such practice of writing letters to the judges when the
matters were pending judgment is deprecated. [119-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 789 of2005.
D
From the final Judgment dated 28-7-2003 of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 274511998.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 5146, 5458 and 5459 of 2005.
E
S.K. Dholakia, S.S. Shinde, Mukti Chowdhary and Ravindra Keshavrao
Adsure for the Appellants.

Arvind V. Savant, Sanjay V. Kharde, Chandana Ramamurthi, Sudhanshu
Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, Manish Pitale, Chander Shekhar Ashri, V.B. Joshi,
F I. Ingle, Ramakant, R.S. Hedge, Savitri Pandey, Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi,
P.P. Singh, D.M. Nargolkar and V.N. Raghupathy, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S~B. SINHA, J. The jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and/
G or extent thereof falls for our consideration in these appeals which arise out
of judgments and orders dated 28.07.2003, 04.10.2004 and 24.l l.2004 passed
by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2745 of 1988, 3153 of 1996
and 3737 of2001 respectively.

We may, however, notice the factual matrix of the matter from Civil
·H Appeal No. 789 of2005.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA i'. RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [S.B. SINHA, J.] } 09

Respondent is said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe being A
belonging to Thakur community as envisaged under Entry 44 of the list of
the Scheduled Tribes pertaining to the State of Maharashtra issued in terms
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,
1976. A certificate showing that he belongs to the aforementioned tribe
community was issued to him. Respondent obtained appointments and/or
admissions in various institutions pursuant to or in furtherance of such B
certificate. However, the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the
decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addi.
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., (1994] 6 SCC 241, opined that
he did not belong to the said community and in fact belongs to Kshatriya
Thakur caste, \\'.l,iereupon his Scheduled Tribe certificate was cancelled. C
Appeal preferred thereagainst before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Nagpur, was also dismissed.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders passed by the
Appellate Authority as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee, writ petitions were D
filed before the Bombay High Court. Interim stay of the operation of the said
orders having been granted, Respondent continued to remain in his service.

The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court delivered
separate judgments. Kharche, J. held :
E
" ... We, therefore, hold that the Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as
the Commissioner were not justified and, as a matter of law, had no
competence to go into the question by holding an enquiry that the
petitioner belongs to caste "Thakur" of Kshatriya category ....... "

Kochar, J., however, in his separate but concurring judgment opined : F
"21. However, what are the parameters of such an enquiry is a crucial
question before us. It cannot partake or cannot be a civil trial of a
Civil Suit in a Civil Court of law. It has, however, to comply with the
principles of law of Evidence and the natural justice in the matter of
hearing and decisio~. The enquiry must accord greater emphasis and G
credence to the documentary evidence rather than oral evidence. If
there is preponderance of documentary evidence, such as Caste
Certificate, School Leaving Certificate of the pre-Presidential Orders,
they must be accepted without any. further probe or scrutiny. The
document of the post-Presidential Orders, however, cannot be discarded H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A only on the ground that it is of the post-Presidential period. That
would be absurd and ridiculous. The Committee.cannot proceed on
. the presumption that all such doculllents are fabricated and created
. lor the purpose of getting reservation benefits. In such matters, there
c.annot be any other eviden~e to establish the caste claim. There ·is
no . blood group or DNA test to show· any. one's caste which is
B claimed. We cannot presume that all the parents and all the wards
speak lie for all the time to earn the benefits out of their caste. No
doubt, some might create a false record to snatch such benefits but
cannot 1.ead us to infonn universally for all the times that every
document is a fabricated and bogus document. Ordinarily and
c . predominantly no high caste person would claim to belong to a caste
of reserved category. There is no instance heard of that a Brahm in
or a Jain or Kshatriya has recorded falsely that he belonged to an
S.C./S. T. class top get the benefits of those categories. 1Such litigation,
however, is. amongst those whose caste/tribes have close similarity
inter se e.g. Halba and Halba Koshti, Thakur-Ka-Ma etc. Koli and
D Mahadev Koli, Mana Gond Mana etc. etc. in any· case, all these
castes/tribes belong to ·a class· of Haves - Not and· they try to get ,
some benefit for their livelihood ..... "

The learned Judge furthermore commented upon the so-called
E malfunctioning of the Scrutiny Committee.and directed that it must get itself
satisfied only on the basis of documentary evidence and n~ oral evidence
would be admissible therefor, concluding :

"(i) No enquiry is pennissible as to the entries in respect of the
castes/tribes in the Schedules of the Presidential Orders. We
.
<.-

~
have to take them as they are, as mandated in the Milind Katware's
F
case, without adding or substracti~g anything from the e·ntires.

(ii) The claimant has to prove his claim to ·belong to a particular
caste/tribe to be able to get the benefits of the reservation policy.

(iii) The claima~t must establish his right by pro~ucing proper
G documentary evidence.
(iv) The claimant must physically enter in witness box and swear on
oath."

Referring to the object and purport of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta ~atis), Nomadic Tribes,
H

•
·... STATE OF MAHARASh'TRA v. RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [S.B. SINHA, J .J } } }

Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of A
issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, it was directed :

(a) Considering the importance of the subject matter involving most
valuable right of either employment or education which is wholly
dependent upon the Caste/Tribe Certificates, this job of Caste/
Tribe Scrutiny should be assigned to trained Judicial Officers and B
not to bureaucrats who are not at all legally trained to decide and
appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. Such Committees
should comprise of the Judicial Officers of the District Judges
cadre and not less. We have a large number of retired Judicial
Officers who can be assigned this duty.
c
(b) All the Scrutiny Committees should be brought under the control
and supervision and within the purview of Art. 235 of the
Constitution of India. Their recruitments and appointments should
be under the High Court like any other judicial posts."

It is not clear as to whether Kharche, J. agreed with the aforementioned D
directions of Kochar, J. or not.

We, however, with respect to the learned judges, record our disapproval
to the observations made and directions issued in this behalf.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been set E
up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional purposes. It
is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the
provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior
courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence
to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted F
to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take
oral evidence.

Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case
to case. Theerights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. It is
one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body should appreciate evidence. G
adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow
adduction of oral evidence at all.

It was furthermore not proper to suggest that all such bodies should
be brought within the purview of Article 23 5 of the Constitution of India or
only judicial officers should be appointed. H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A As judges, we should exercise restraint before making such observations
which would have a far reaching effect. Such directions could not have been,
in our opinion, issued in a matter where the State had not been called upon
to make its comments. No empirical study as regards functioning of the Caste
Scrutiny Committees was carried out. Such sweeping remarks without there
being adequate materials on records were, thus, unwarranted. The)' are to
B a great extent contrary to and inconsistent with the directions issued by this
Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). We would advert to this aspect of the matter
a little later.
0

The sh ort question which arises for consideration is as to whether the
C Caste Scrutiny Committee could go into the validity or otherwise of the
certificate granted by the authorities. The High Court relied upon..a decision
of this Court in Pa/ghat Ji/la Thandan Samudhaya Samfakshna Samithi and
Anr. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [1994] 1SCC359 and some other decisions
of this Court. ..
D We, with respect, do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court
that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person
concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as
a Scheduled Tribe.

The question in regard to the purport and object for which such
E Committees are constituted came up for consideration before this Court in a
large number of cases.

In Kumari Madhuri Patt.· (supra), this Court directed constitution of
such Caste Scrutiny Committees with a view to streamline the procedure for
issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval. This Court
F observed :

" ... Since the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose
habi.tat being ge..erally hilly regions or forests, results in their staying
away fr0m the mainstream of the national life. Therefore, the State is
enjoined under our Censtitution to provide facilities and opportunities
G for development of their scientific temper, educational advancement
and economic improvement so that they may achieve excellence,
equality of status and live with dignity. Reservation in admission to
educational institutions and employment are major State policies to
accord to the tribes, social and economic justice apart from other
H economic measures. Hence, the tribes, by reason of State's policy of
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [S.B. SINHAJ) 113

reservation, have been given the exclusive right to admission into A
educational institutions or exclusive right to employment to an office
or post under the State etc. to the earmarked quota. For availment of
such exclusive rights by citizens belonging to tribes, the President by
a notification specified the Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or
parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities so as to entitle them ,B
to avail of such exclusive rights. The Union o( India and the State
Governments have prescribed the procedure and have entrusted duty
and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue
social status certificate, after due verification ....."

The Court held that Mahadeo Kolis are not Kolis. It entered into the C
merit of the matter including the certificates issued by the school authorities
as also the findings of the Committee and the Appellate Authority. It was
stated :

" ... The Additional Commissioner as well, has minutely gone into all
the material details and found that when a section of the society have D
started asserting themselves as tribes and try to earn the concession
and facilities reserved for the Scheduled Tribes, the tricks are common
and that, therefore, must be judged on legal and ethnological basis.
Spurious tribes have become a threat to the genuine tribals and the
present case is a typical example of reservation of benefits given to
the genuine claimants being snatched away by spurious tribes. On E
consideration of the evidence, as stated earlier, both the Committee
and the appellate authority found as a fact that the appellants are not
tribe 'Mahadeo Koli' entitled to the constitutional benefits. In Subhash
Ganpatrao Kabade case, the approach of the Division Bench of the
High Court appears to be legalistic in the traditional mould totally F
oblivious of the anthropological and ethnological perspectives and
recorded their findings with unwarranted strictures on the approach
rightly adopted by the Scrutiny Committee and the Additional
Commissioner to be '(funny)' "obviously incorrect" and "queer
reasoning". Admittedly the petitioner therein, in days preceding the
Constitution, described himself in the service book as well as school G
leaving certificate as a Hindu Koli. The High Court also found that
they were backward class but proceeded on the erroneous footing
that Mahadeo Koli was introduced for the first time through 1976
Amendment Act and that, therefore, they were the genuine Scheduled
Tribes entitled to the benefits. In view of the above, we cannot help H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A holding that the reasoning of the High Court is wholly perverse and
untenable."

In State of Maharashtra v.. Mi/ind & Ors. [2001] l SCC 4 it was
held that Halba-Koshti having not been mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes
Order, were not treated to be part of Halba, stating :
B
" ... No doubt, it is true, the stand of the appellant as to the controversy
relating to "Halba-Koshti" has been varying from time to time but in
the view we have taken on Question l, the circulars/ resolutions/
instructions issued by the State Government from time to time, some
times contrary to the instructions issued by the Central Government,
c are of no consequence. They could be simply ignored as the State
Government had neither the authority nor the competency to amend
or alter the Scheduled Tribes Order. It appears taking note of false and
frivolous claims being made by persons not entitled to claim such
status, the Government of· India addressed letters and issued
•
instructions between the period from 21-4-1969 to 1982 to impress that
there should be strict inquiry before issuance of caste certificates to
persons claiming Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe status; strict
scrutiny into the caste of the parent should be effected as a
checkpoint...."

E The said decision, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that
only because a claim is made by :l person that he belongs to a member of
a tribe notified to be Scheduled Tribe in terms ~f the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes .and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, no
immunity in absolute terms can be claimed.

F The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst
citizens. Constitution of Tndia provides for protective discrimination and
reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same
platform as that :>f the forward community. If and when a person takes an
undue advantage .of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by
G obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the
Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a
fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the
Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not
otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State
shall be helpless spectator in the matter.
H
,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR[S.B. SINHA, J.J 115

We, with respect, fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court as A
it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of Respondent tallied with
the name of the tribe, which finds mention in one or the other entries of the
schedule appended to the 1976 Order, the same must be tr~ated to be sacrosanct
and no enquiry in relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be
gone into by any Committee. The observations and directions of the High
Court, in our considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of B
the Court but also fall short of the ground realities.

Mr. Arvind Savant, the learned Senior Counsel, would place strong
reliance on a decision of this Court in Pa/ghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya
Samrakshna Samithi (supra) and in particular paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof, C
which read as under :

"18. These judgments leave no doubt that the. Scheduled Castes
Order has. to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or
evidence let in to determine whether or not some particular community
falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the D
Scheduled Castes Order, except as contemplated by Article 341, is
valid.

19. The Thandan community in the instant case having been
listed in the Scheduled Castes Order as it now stands, it is not open
to the State Government or, indeed, to this Court to embark upon an E
enquiry to determine whether a section of Ezhavas/Thiyyas which
was called Thandan in the Malabar area of the State was excluded
from the benefits of the Scheduled Castes Order."

The said decision must be read in the light of factual matrix obtaining
therein. Indisputably, Thandans are members Scheduled Tribe. An entry F
made .under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 made in terms
of Article 341 of the Constitution of India, as applicable to the State of Kerala,
specified Thandans as Scheduled Tribe as Item No. 61 thereof. The State
sought to modify the said order by issuing an order in the year 1984 stating:

" ... On October 15, 1984 the Government of Kerala issued an order G
which stated that, having reconsidered the matter in all its aspects,
the 1979 order was cancelled and "Thandans throughout Kerala would
be treated as members of Scheduled Caste as existing in the list of
Scheduled Castes of this State as per Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Community Certificate issued H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A accordingly ....."

..
The said order was modified by another order dated 24.11.1987, the
operative portion whereof read is as under :

"Government have again considered the matter in all its aspects
B and in partial modification of the Government order read above as
second paper Government now order that persons belonging to the
Thandan Caste throughout Kerala would be treated as members of
Scheduled Caste as existing in the list of Scheduled Castes of this
State as per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Ame!Jdment) Act, 1976. While issuing such caste certificate the
c Revenue au.thorities should clarify after proper verification that the
person concerned belongs to Thandan caste and not Ezhava/Thiyya."

The question which arose for consideration before this Court was as to
whether the persons named or called Thandans in Malabar area were intended
to be covered by the 1976 Order. The findings of this Court, which we have
D noticed hereinbefore, must be judged on the touchstone of the factual matrix
obtaining therein. It was held :

"21. The enquiry that was ordered by the High Court in the order
under appeal to "find out whether there was a community called
Thandan distinct from Ezhavas in Palghat District in areas other than
E
in the erstwhile Chittur Taluk and also in any other place in erstwhile
Malabar District" has proceeded to a conclusion on the basis of an
interim order passed by this Court on January 16, 1989. It is not for
the State Government or for this Court to enquire into the correctness
of what is stated in the report that has been made thereon or to utilise
F the report to, in effect, modify the Scheduled CasR!s Order. It is open
to the State Government, if it so deems proper, to forward the report
to the appropriate authority to consider whether the Scheduled Castes
Order needs amendment by appropriate legislation. Until the Scheduled
Castes Order is amended, it must be obeyed as it reads and the State
Government must treat Thandans throughout Kerala as members of
G the Scheduled Castes and issue community certificates accordingly."

This Court therein was not dealing with a case where a certificate had
been granted wrongly to him although he was not entitled thereto.

The question yet again came up for consideration before a Constitution
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RA VI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 117

Bench of this Court in Mi/ind (supra), wherein in no uncertain terms it was A
held that the as President had the benefit of consulting the States through
the Governors of the States, no further enquiry as regards the correctness of

... the entries in the order was permissible in law. The Court further held :

"2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even
permissibte to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe B
or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the
Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it."

Reliance has also been placed on State of Maharashtra and Ors. v.
Mana Adim Jamal Manda/, [2006] 4 SCC 98. The question which arose for
consideration therein was as to whether the decision rendered by this Court c
in Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu and Ors., [1980] l SCC 621 was
overruled by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Mi/ind (supra). It was held
tO be so. The said decision has no application whatsoever.

· Reliance has also been placed in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v ... D
State of Maharashtra and Ors., [ 1996] 3 SCC 685 wherein this Court referring
to Madhuri Patil (supra) on the fact situation obtaining therein opined :

"17. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we'
are satisfied that the Committee failed to consider all the relevant
materials placed before it and did not apply its mind to an important E
document "SI. No. 9" which led the Committee ultimately to record a
finding against the appellant. By a wrongful denial of the caste
certificate to the genuine candidate,. he/she will be deprived of the
privileges conferred upon him/her by the Constitution. Therefore greater
care must be taken before granting or rejecting any claim for caste
certificate. F
18. The High Court without appreciating the probative value of
the documents placed before it has dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the
second respondent Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the
burden heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate. That G
does not mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out
the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate.
We are of the view that the authorities concerned must also play a
role in assisting the Committee to arrive at a correct decision. In this
case, except the documents produced by the appellant, nothing has
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A been produced by the authorities concerned to arrive at a different
conclusion."

The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the proposition that
the Committee can go into the question as to whether a caste certificate has
rightly been issued or not. The authorities concerned were also found to
B have some role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim
for issue of a caste certificate.

We may notice that in Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Mandivikar
and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690, a two-Judge Bench of this Court opined that the
C employee concerned having played fraud for obtaining an appointment, should
not _be allowed to get the benefit thereof. [See also Ram Saran v. /.G. of
Police, CRPF & Ors. (2006) 2 SCALE 131, Employees State Insurance
Corporalion v. Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union and Ors., (2006) 7
SCALE 171 and Sandeep Subhash' Parate v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2006) 8 SCALE 503.
D
\Vhile there are decisions ·and decisions in regard to the ultimate relief
granted in each case, we see no· authority laying down a law that under no
circumstances an enquiry would be impermissible in Jaw.

A serious attempt has been made before us to argue on the merit of
~ the matter.

The learned Senior Counsel made endeavours that we should go into
the merit of the matter and set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
as has been done by the High Court. We decline to do so. The High Court
.although allowed the writ petitions filed by Respondent herein, did not
F analyze the evidences relied upon by the Committee at all. It, as noticed
hereinbefore, proceeded principally on the basis that no enquiry was
permissible.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that merit of the matter should be
considered afresh by the High Court. We would, however, request the High
G Court to consider the desirability of disposing the matters as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. We must observe that we have not gone into
the ~erit of the matter and, thus, all contentions of the parties including the
question of back-wages, shall remain open. The appeals are allowed.
H
STATE OF MAHARASITTRA v. RAVI PRAKASH BABULALSING PARMAR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 119
·'
While the matter was pending judgment, we received letters from A
Respondents urging us not to remit the matter back to the High Court. These
letters were issued presumably having regard to the observations made by
us during hearing that the High Court had not gone into the merit of the
matters. We deprecate the practice of writing letters to the judges when the
matters were pending judgment. At one point of time, we thought to initiate B
the proceedings against Respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971; but we refrain ourselves from doing so. We are, however, of the opinion
that Respondents should bear and pay the costs of Appellants which is
quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five only) in each case. We direct
accordingly.

C!Vil APPEAL N0.5459 of 2005 :
c
Mr. Arvind V. Savant, the learned Senior Counsel, states that as the
entire matter is being remitted to the High Court, he would not press this
appeal, leaving the contentions raised therein open. The appeal is dismissed.
~ro~ D
D.G. Appeals allowed.