REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5243             OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24662 of 2005]

Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav .. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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.   

3. The main grievance 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 case was closed for orders before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee on 29.9.2003.  Thereafter, without notice

to  the  appellant,  Caste  Certificate  Register  was  called  on

28.10.2003  and  representatives  from  the  Office  of  the

Tehsildar  were  called  on  7.11.2003.   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

articulated before the Division Bench of the High Court, but it

did not deal with this aspect of the matter, therefore, in the

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.

2

5. This  Court  after  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant issued notice limited to the question as to whether

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  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

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.

3

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.   

9. Consequently, we remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny

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.

..….….……………………..J.   (Dalveer Bhandari)

……….……………………..J.   (Harjit Singh Bedi)

4

New Delhi; August 26, 2008.

5