TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im before any forum, whatsoever - a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever - However, in the exceptional circumstances if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-moto, in such respect -Cross-examination was one part of the principles of natural justice. Affidavit - Whether evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Held that:- It was a settled legal proposition that an affidavit was not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 - the filing of an affidavit of one’s own statement, in one’s own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact-situatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said certificate was verified. The Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the appellant belonging to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). After the lapse of a period of 9 years, respondent no.5 filed complaint dated 9.1.2009, through an advocate before the Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of recalling the said validity certificate, on the ground that the appellant had obtained employment by way of misrepresentation, and that he does not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category. In fact, the appellant professed the religion of Islam and therefore, could not be a Scheduled Tribe. B. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the said application vide order dated 13.3.2009, observing that it had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate, as there is no statutory provision that provides for the same. C. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 challenged the order dated 13.3.2009, by filing Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench), praying for quashing of the order dated 13.3.2009, and directing the Scrutin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witnesses. It further, did not clarify whether the application dated 28.2.2012, filed by the appellant to re-call witnesses for the purpose of crossexamination, has been disposed of. Moreover, the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is in contravention of the statutory requirements, as have been specified under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the, `Act 2001 ), and the Rules, 2003 which are framed under the Act 2001 and therefore, all proceedings hereby stand vitiated. The appellant placed reliance upon several documents which are all very old and therefore, their authenticity should not have been doubted. The earlier report submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 29.12.1998, clearly stated that the traits and characteristics of the appellant s family, matched with those of Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). The action of respondent no.5 is therefore, completely malifide and is intended, solely to harass the appellant, and the High Court committed gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784). 8. A legal right , means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, person aggrieved does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa . Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam Anr., AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69) 13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758) 14. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under: There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. 22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect. Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice: 23. A Constitution Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l justice. 26. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India Ors., AIR 1984 SC 273, this Court held that, in order to sustain a complaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination, it must be established that some prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed. A party, who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence on record, or of the testimony gathered behind his back, cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent grievance raised by him, stating that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to him, specially when the same was not requested, and there was no dispute regarding the veracity of the statement. (See also: Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850; and Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32). 27. In Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Sri Rama Krishna Rice Mill, AIR 2006 SC 1445, this Court held: In order to establish that the crossexamination is necessary, the consumer has to make out a case for the same. Merely stating that the statement of an officer is being utilised for the purpose of adjudication would not be sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e one of effective cross-examination, so as to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such an opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross-examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. 31. Affidavit - whether evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872: It is a settled legal proposition that an affidavit is not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act ). Affidavits are therefore, not included within the purview of the definition of "evidence" as has been given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, and the same can be used as "evidence" only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC ). Thus, the filing of an affidavit of one s own statement, in one s own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact-situation. (Vide: Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opposite side to traverse it. The Court, if it finds that having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is necessary to record oral evidence tested by oral cross-examination, may have recourse to that procedure." 35. In Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 94, this Court while dealing with a case under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, while considering complex issues regarding the Markets, Exchanges and Securities, and the procedure to be followed by special Tribunals, held as under : While it may be true that the Special Court has been given a certain amount of latitude in the matter of procedure, it surely cannot fly away from established legal principles while deciding the cases before it. As to what inference arises from a document, is always a matter of evidence unless the document is self-explanatory .In the absence of any such explanation, it was not open to the Special Court to come up with its own explanations and decide the fate of the suit on the basis of its inference based on such assumed explanations. 36. Therefore, affidavits in the light of the aforesaid discussion are not considered to be eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riate order with brief reasons in support thereof. (3) In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. (4) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. (5) In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icates will not call for verification by the scrutiny committees. Madhuri Patil provides for verification only to avoid false and bogus claims .. (Emphasis added) 39. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment in Daya Ram (supra), that the purpose of issuing directions in Km. Madhuri Patil (supra), was only to examine those cases, where caste certificates had been issued without conducting any prior enquiry, on the basis of selfaffidavits regarding one s caste alone, and that the said directions were not at all applicable, where a legislation governing or regulating the grant of caste certificates exists, and where caste certificates are issued after due and proper enquiry. Caste certificates issued by holding proper enquiry, in accordance with duly prescribed procedure, would not require any further verification by the scrutiny committee. 40. In pursuance of the said order issued by the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee examined the case of the parties. However, with respect to this, the appellant raised the grievance that, the evidence of a large number of persons had been recorded by the Scrutiny Committee behind his back, and that he had not been given an opportuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent No. 5. In response to the said order, respondent no. 5 filed an affidavit in Court on 5.11.2012. The contents of the affidavit reveal that respondent no.5 claims that his occupation is that of a social worker. The allegations against the appellant stating that he obtained the said caste certificate fraudulently, have been repeated. Respondent no. 5 has not mentioned in the affidavit, the date on which he appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, nor has he responded to the query raised with respect to whether he had produced any evidence to support his allegations, or whether the appellant was allowed to crossexamine any of the witnesses, or if in fact, he simply examined all of them himself. The relevant part of the abovementioned affidavit, has been reproduced hereunder: That it is submitted that on 28.2.2012 the Respondent No. 5 submitted copy of Affidavit of Mr. Supdu Musa Tadvi and by way of an application prayed for personal presence of Mr. Supdu Musa Tadvi. Scrutiny Committee finding contradictions in the two statement of Mr. Supdu Musa Tadvi, issued notice to him requesting his personal presence on 17.3.2012. However, Mr. Supdu Musa Tadri never appeare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayan Govind Gavate Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Ors., AIR 1977 SC 183; Karewwa Ors.v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri Ors., AIR 2002 SC 504; Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 36; Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653; Punjab State Electricity Board Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar, (2010) 7 SCC 569; M. Chandra v. M. Thangmuthu Anr., AIR 2011 SC 146; and R. Ramachandran Nair v. Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance Police, (2011) 4 SCC 395) 46. In view of the above discussion and considering the seriousness of the allegations, as the Scrutiny Committee has already conducted an inquiry in relation to this matter, and the only grievance of the appellant is that there has been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the fact that the applications filed by him, were not decided upon, we direct that before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee. We further direct the Scrutiny Committee to pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
