1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 111/2008 SHRI SANDIP ARJUN VAZARKAR. .......... PETITIONER. VERSUS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF CASTE CERTIFICATE AND TWO OTHERS. ........... RESPONDENTS. Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Rodrigues, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. M. D. Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni and Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 16th July, 2008 P.C. : This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.1.08 and the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Mapusa dated 15.2.08, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits P-1 and P-2 to this writ petition. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhandari Naik Samaj. He relies on a certificate to that effect 2 which has been issued by the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Mapusa. The O.B.C. status of the petitioner was put in issue as a result of the complaint received by the authorities. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee proceeds on the basis that the certificate had been obtained by misrepresenting all facts. Further, by a letter dated 8.5.07, the Goa Bhandari Samaj has revoked or withdrawn its earlier recommendation regarding the petitioner being a member of the Samaj. The order proceeds on the basis that the Department sought a report from the Superintendent of Police (HQ) Panaji who confirmed that the petitioner belonged to Bhandari Community. However, a fresh complaint along with certain report of Mamlatdar of Bardez and a report dated 7.9.07, so also local inquiry are being referred to in the impugned order. The dispute was raised before this Court in a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 460/07 by one Rajesh Kauthankar and since the matter was pending before the Scrutiny Committee prior thereto, the said writ petition was disposed of. 2. The only argument canvassed before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee is constituted for scrutiny and verification of caste certificate. That when the caste certificate pertaining to the petitioner being an OBC was being scrutinized and verified by the said Committee, the Committee is supposed to be applying its 3 independent mind to the materials placed before it. It must verify and scrutinize the caste claim and the Committee cannot rely upon some communication from the Samaj withdrawing the caste or social status or that of the Deputy Collector or other Authorities in that behalf. What was required by the Scrutiny Committee is to have followed the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., (Civil Appeal No.5854 of 1994, decided on 2.9.1994) reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Once the duty in law has not been performed and the Scrutiny Committee merely relied upon the communication from the Samaj as being the vital material, then it has failed to perform its duty in law. In such circumstances, the matter must go back to the Scrutiny Committee, after the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent have urged that even if the matter is to be remanded, the petitioner must not be permitted to rely upon the documents which are being produced for the first time before this Court. This Court should not comment upon the merits of claim or evidentiary value of the materials that have been placed by the parties. It is further contended that the certificate of caste was itself not 4 issued in accordance with law. It is wholly vitiated. Such certificate being put in issue, if the Court was to quash and set aside the order of the Scrutiny committee, it would mean that the illegal/invalid caste certificate would stand revived. In other words, while curing and setting right one illegality, this Court would be restoring or continuing another illegal order. We need not go into this aspect of the matter. 4. With the able assistance of the Counsel appearing for both sides, we have perused the impugned Order. From a perusal thereof, it is apparent to us that the Committee has perused the materials placed on record. However, what we find from the order is that the Committee has heavily relied upon the communication of the Gomantak Bhandari Samaj, revoking its earlier certificate. The Committee has also placed reliance upon the report dated 12.10.07 from the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Mapusa who had, on the basis of his detailed inquiry, confirmed revocation of the caste certificate issued by Bhandari Samaj. None seriously dispute the fact that the scrutiny and verification of the claim of the petitioner was to be done independently by the Committee. The Committee is supposed to apply its independent mind to all the materials produced before it in support of the caste claim and should not have been influenced by the above communications. That duty has not been performed, admittedly, in law. In such circumstances, we have 5 no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order at Exhibit P-1 dated 29.1.08 and remitting the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny and verification of the social status afresh, on merits and in accordance with law. We leave open all the contentions raised before us, including the pleas in the affidavits filed in reply and rejoinder. Further, we leave open the issue as to whether the documents placed before us can be relied upon by the petitioner to prove his social status and even their evidentiary value must be gone into by the Committee after considering all the arguments and objections. The contentions in that behalf are also kept open. It would be open for the contesting respondents to urge that the materials placed before other Authorities also be looked into and we do not comment on that aspect as well. In such circumstances, we quash and set aside the order under challenge and remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee being set aside and the matter being remitted for fresh consideration would, necessarily mean that the Committee must decide as to whether the inquiry conducted by the Mamlatdar and the report which is relied upon by the Dy. Collector and S.D.O. Mapusa should constitute the only materials for scrutiny and verification of the caste claim of the petitioner or other documents including vigilance Report should also be looked into and considered. Needless to state that the order dated 15.2.08 should not alone influence the 6 ultimate decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. All contentions on merits are kept open and it is clarified that no opinion is expressed thereon. The parties to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 21.7.08 at 10 a.m. and the Caste Scrutiny Committee to endeavor and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. Petition is disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.