VILAS DINKAR BHAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. on 10 August 2018

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1056

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 9 S.C.R.

A

VILAS DINKAR BHAT

v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.2095 of 2007)

B

AUGUST 10, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure – Appellant approached theCommittee concerned as also the High Court for a declaration thatby birth he belongs to “Thakar” caste, a Schedule Tribe – ClaimCdismissed – Held: Committee though considered some documentsfiled by the appellant but did not consider all the documents onwhich the appellant had placed reliance – High Court in its writjurisdiction declined to go into the merits of the writ petition – Whena party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, Din support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the casemay be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation toapply its mind to entire evidence and record its reasoned findingswhether accepting the evidence or rejecting it – This principle wasnot followed by the Committee– Case remanded to the Committeefor considering it afresh – Order of High Court and the CommitteeEset aside.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Committee though considered somedocuments filed by the appellant but did not consider all theFdocuments on which the appellant had placed reliance. The HighCourt in its writ jurisdiction declined to go into the merits of thewrit petition stating that since the issue involves questions offact, it was not possible to examine the case on facts in its writjurisdiction. It was more so when the Committee probed the issuein detail on facts. When a party relies upon any evidence, whetherGit is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially theoriginal Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entiredocumentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance forproving his case and record its reasoned findings whetherHaccepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties inaccordance with law while deciding the case. This principle wasnot followed by the Committee while considering the appellant’scase. The case is remanded to the Committee for reconsiderationof the appellant’s case on its merits in accordance with law. [Paras10-12] [1058-E-H; 1059-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2095of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2004 and 11.12.2006of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.7518/2002 and Review Petition No. 2982/2006 respectively.

Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Shakul R. Ghatole,Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs.for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directedagainst the final judgment and order dated 12.07.2004 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.7518 of 2002and the judgment and order dated 11.12.2006 in Review Petition No.2982of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and also theReview Petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Few facts need to be mentioned to appreciate the short issueinvolved in the appeal.

3. The question arises in this appeal is about the caste of theappellant-whether 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 adeclaration to that effect in his favour.

5. For claiming this declaration, the appellant approached to theCommittee concerned and also the High Court of Bombay twice but hisclaim suffered dismissal before the Committee and the High Court inthe writ petition on both the occasions giving rise to filing of this appealby way of special leave against the order of the High Court.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6.Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was essentiallyone. His argument is that though the appellant had filed as many as 50documents in support of his case to prove that he belongs to a caste“Thakar” but unfortunately neither the Committee and nor the High Courtexamined the documents in their proper perspective in their respectivejurisdiction and, therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by theBCommittee afresh.

7. Learned counsel especially brought to our notice thedocuments at pages 30 to 33 of the SLP paper book, which, according tolearned counsel, are in his favour but none of these documents wereconsidered either by the Committee or the High Court.C

8. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent (State) supportedthe impugned order of the High Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and whileDsetting aside the impugned order and also the order of the Committee,remand the case to the Committee for fresh consideration of theappellant’s case on its merit.

10. On perusal of the Committee’s order, we find that theCommittee though considered some documents filed by the appellantEbut did not consider all the documents on which the appellant had placedreliance. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction declined to go into themerits of the writ petition stating that since the issue involves questionsof 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, whetherFit is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is underan obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence onwhich the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record itsreasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. WhatGis important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the partiesin accordance with law while deciding the case.

12. It is for this reason, we consider it proper to remand the caseto the Committee for reconsideration of the appellant’s case on its meritsin accordance with law keeping in view our observation made supra H

VILAS DINKAR BHAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

because we find that this principle was not followed by the Committeewhile considering the appellant’s case.

13. The Committee will decide the matter after affording anopportunity to the appellant strictly in accordance with law without beinginfluenced by any of our observation on merits which we have refrainedto make once formed an opinion to remand the case to the Committee.

14. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed.Impugned order and the order of the Committee are set aside. The caseis remanded to the Committee for its disposal afresh, as directed above,within six months.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H