Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,

Decided On : Oct-16-2009

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 4(1',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13',
			(int) 3 => 'the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 7',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 13',
			(int) 6 => 'The Constitution Bench',
			(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'the Constitution Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'The Constitution Bench',
			(int) 10 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 11 => 'State Reorganization Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ranjana Desai',
			(int) 1 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 2 => 'Kavita',
			(int) 3 => 'Chandraprakash Goel',
			(int) 4 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
			(int) 5 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 6 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 7 => 'B. Tech',
			(int) 8 => 'Tech',
			(int) 9 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 10 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 11 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 12 => 'Vishnu Thakur',
			(int) 13 => 'Tribes',
			(int) 14 => 'Vimukta Jatis',
			(int) 15 => 'Nomadic Tribes',
			(int) 16 => 'Backward Classes',
			(int) 17 => 'thus;13',
			(int) 18 => 'Caste Certificate.(1',
			(int) 19 => 'Caste Certificate',
			(int) 20 => 'Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel',
			(int) 21 => 'Kavita',
			(int) 22 => 'Shastri Nagar',
			(int) 23 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 24 => 'Kanpur Nagar',
			(int) 25 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
			(int) 26 => 'Shastri Nagar',
			(int) 27 => 'comprehension.15',
			(int) 28 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 29 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 30 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 31 => 'practice.16',
			(int) 32 => 'Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean',
			(int) 33 => 'Seth G. S. Medical College',
			(int) 34 => 'Articles 341',
			(int) 35 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 36 => 'Anr',
			(int) 37 => 'Marri Chandra's',
			(int) 38 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 39 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 40 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 41 => 'Sudhakar Vithal v. State',
			(int) 42 => 'Anr',
			(int) 43 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 44 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 45 => 'M.B.B.S. Degree',
			(int) 46 => 'Caste Scrutiny',
			(int) 47 => 'Taluka Kalyan'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 3 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 4 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 6 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 7 => 'Maharashtra'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 1 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Thane',
			(int) 3 => 'Mulund',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'Thane',
			(int) 6 => 'Ghatkopar',
			(int) 7 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 8 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 9 => 'Thane',
			(int) 10 => 'Thane',
			(int) 11 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 12 => 'Thane',
			(int) 13 => 'Village Dombivli',
			(int) 14 => 'Thane',
			(int) 15 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 16 => 'Thane',
			(int) 17 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 18 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 19 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 20 => 'Thane',
			(int) 21 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 22 => 'C.R.',
			(int) 23 => 'Thane',
			(int) 24 => 'District - Kanpur',
			(int) 25 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 26 => 'Thane',
			(int) 27 => 'District Thane',
			(int) 28 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 29 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 30 => 'Thane',
			(int) 31 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 32 => 'Thane',
			(int) 33 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 34 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 35 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 36 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 37 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 39 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 40 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 41 => 'Thane',
			(int) 42 => 'Thane',
			(int) 43 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 44 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 45 => 'Andhra',
			(int) 46 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 47 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 48 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 49 => 'S.Ts',
			(int) 50 => 'States',
			(int) 51 => 'States',
			(int) 52 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 53 => 'Marri Chandra and',
			(int) 54 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 55 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 56 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 57 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 58 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 59 => 'Mantralaya',
			(int) 60 => 'Mumbai'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 1 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 2 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 3 => '3',
			(int) 4 => '4',
			(int) 5 => '2004.4',
			(int) 6 => '5/8/2004',
			(int) 7 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 8 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 9 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 10 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 11 => '9/1/06',
			(int) 12 => '9/1/06',
			(int) 13 => '299',
			(int) 14 => '27/11/07',
			(int) 15 => '27/11/07',
			(int) 16 => '7/1/08',
			(int) 17 => '31/5/08',
			(int) 18 => '3',
			(int) 19 => '4',
			(int) 20 => '29/1/09',
			(int) 21 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 22 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 23 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 24 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 25 => '3',
			(int) 26 => '4',
			(int) 27 => 'two',
			(int) 28 => '20/4/09',
			(int) 29 => '22/7/09',
			(int) 30 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 31 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 32 => '3',
			(int) 33 => '4',
			(int) 34 => '3',
			(int) 35 => '4',
			(int) 36 => 'two',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '9',
			(int) 39 => '4',
			(int) 40 => '13',
			(int) 41 => 'less than',
			(int) 42 => 'two',
			(int) 43 => 'two',
			(int) 44 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 45 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 46 => '11/10/2000Thus',
			(int) 47 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 48 => '10/8/50',
			(int) 49 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 50 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 51 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 52 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => '28/6/04',
			(int) 55 => 'one',
			(int) 56 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 57 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 58 => '24/8/1995).18',
			(int) 59 => 'one',
			(int) 60 => '3',
			(int) 61 => '130',
			(int) 62 => '342',
			(int) 63 => '5',
			(int) 64 => 'two',
			(int) 65 => '5',
			(int) 66 => '454',
			(int) 67 => '4',
			(int) 68 => '2',
			(int) 69 => '278',
			(int) 70 => '5',
			(int) 71 => '652',
			(int) 72 => '1',
			(int) 73 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 74 => '5/4/04',
			(int) 75 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 76 => '5/8/2004',
			(int) 77 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 78 => '18/1/2010.The'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai Division',
			(int) 2 => 'Scrutiny Committee'',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 4 => 'Standard Examination',
			(int) 5 => 'Smt',
			(int) 6 => 'Nanavati Science College',
			(int) 7 => 'the Government of Maharashtra'.5',
			(int) 8 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 9 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 10 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 11 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 14 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 15 => 'Contempt Petition No',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 18 => '7th Semester of final year',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'B Tech',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 25 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 26 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 27 => 'the State of Maharashtra.11',
			(int) 28 => 'Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 29 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 30 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 31 => 'Scrutiny',
			(int) 32 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
			(int) 33 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 36 => 'Regulation of Issuance and Verification',
			(int) 37 => 'Competent Authorities',
			(int) 38 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
			(int) 39 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 40 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 41 => 'The Competent Authority',
			(int) 42 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 43 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 44 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 45 => 'The Competent Authority',
			(int) 46 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 47 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 48 => 'Competent Authorities',
			(int) 49 => 'The Competent Authorities',
			(int) 50 => 'the Competent Authorities',
			(int) 51 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 52 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 53 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 54 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 55 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 56 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 57 => 'the State/Union Territory',
			(int) 58 => 'the State/Union',
			(int) 59 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 60 => 'State',
			(int) 61 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 62 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 63 => 'Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 64 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 65 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 66 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 67 => 'the Deputy Collector',
			(int) 68 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 69 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 70 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 71 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 72 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 73 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 74 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 75 => 'Uttar Pradesh'',
			(int) 76 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 77 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 78 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 79 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 80 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 81 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 82 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 83 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 84 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 85 => 'the Government Circular',
			(int) 86 => 'State',
			(int) 87 => 'State',
			(int) 88 => 'State',
			(int) 89 => 'the Scrutiny Committee of this State',
			(int) 90 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 91 => 'Government Circular',
			(int) 92 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 93 => 'Maharashtra (vide Government Circular',
			(int) 94 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 95 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 96 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 97 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 98 => 'the concerned department',
			(int) 99 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 100 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 101 => 'No Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 102 => 'the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra',
			(int) 103 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Scheduled Tribe Certificate',
			(int) 105 => 'Government of India',
			(int) 106 => 'G. S. Medical College',
			(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 108 => 'State',
			(int) 109 => 'State',
			(int) 110 => 'State',
			(int) 111 => 'State',
			(int) 112 => 'the State of migration.20',
			(int) 113 => 'State',
			(int) 114 => 'Action Committee v. Union of India',
			(int) 115 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 116 => 'State',
			(int) 117 => 'State',
			(int) 118 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes',
			(int) 120 => 'State',
			(int) 121 => 'State',
			(int) 122 => 'State',
			(int) 123 => 'State A',
			(int) 124 => 'State',
			(int) 125 => 'State',
			(int) 126 => 'Hitesh Murkute',
			(int) 127 => 'Court',
			(int) 128 => 'State',
			(int) 129 => 'State',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 132 => 'State',
			(int) 133 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 134 => 'Bombay State',
			(int) 135 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 136 => 'Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board',
			(int) 137 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 138 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 139 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 140 => 'Tribe',
			(int) 141 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 142 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 143 => 'Yogesh Naikwadi's',
			(int) 144 => 'Priyanka Omprakash Panwar',
			(int) 145 => 'M.B.B.S. Examination',
			(int) 146 => 'Court',
			(int) 147 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 148 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 149 => 'Court',
			(int) 150 => 'the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra',
			(int) 151 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 152 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 153 => 'Dombivali',
			(int) 154 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 155 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 156 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 157 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 158 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 159 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 160 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 161 => 'Court',
			(int) 162 => 'Court',
			(int) 163 => 'Registrar General',
			(int) 164 => 'the Secretary Social Welfare Department'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '19/3/1986',
			(int) 1 => 'the month of June',
			(int) 2 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 3 => 'the first year',
			(int) 4 => 'the academic year 2004-05',
			(int) 5 => '2005',
			(int) 6 => 'a period of',
			(int) 7 => 'eight weeks',
			(int) 8 => 'six weeks',
			(int) 9 => 'March, 2008',
			(int) 10 => 'the month of May, 2008',
			(int) 11 => 'today',
			(int) 12 => 'May 2008',
			(int) 13 => 'today',
			(int) 14 => '2009',
			(int) 15 => '2000',
			(int) 16 => '2003',
			(int) 17 => 'less than six months',
			(int) 18 => 'two years',
			(int) 19 => '13271',
			(int) 20 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 21 => '1950',
			(int) 22 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 23 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 24 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 25 => '24/8/1995',
			(int) 26 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 27 => '21/8/1996',
			(int) 28 => 'today',
			(int) 29 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 30 => '1990',
			(int) 31 => 'the age of nine years',
			(int) 32 => '1994',
			(int) 33 => '2007',
			(int) 34 => '2004',
			(int) 35 => '1956',
			(int) 36 => '1960',
			(int) 37 => '2009',
			(int) 38 => '2008',
			(int) 39 => '13 years',
			(int) 40 => 'four years back',
			(int) 41 => '2008',
			(int) 42 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 43 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 44 => '162/2001',
			(int) 45 => 'a period of',
			(int) 46 => 'three months',
			(int) 47 => 'today',
			(int) 48 => 'three months',
			(int) 49 => 'three months'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10th',
			(int) 1 => '3rd',
			(int) 2 => '3rd',
			(int) 3 => '4th',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'second',
			(int) 6 => 'second',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'second',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'second',
			(int) 12 => 'first',
			(int) 13 => 'first',
			(int) 14 => 'second',
			(int) 15 => 'first',
			(int) 16 => '3rd',
			(int) 17 => '4th'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Full Bench of',
			(int) 1 => 'The Full Bench',
			(int) 2 => 'The Full Bench',
			(int) 3 => 'Dombivli',
			(int) 4 => 'the Full Bench',
			(int) 5 => 'the Full Bench of',
			(int) 6 => 'the Full Bench of'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 1 => 'Subhash Chandra'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his',
			(int) 1 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 2 => 'Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '715'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '367230',
			'acts' => 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Sections 4(1), 7 and 13; State Reorganization Act, 1956; Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 - Rule 4(9); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226, 341 and 342',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 4319 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. We are not happy about that delay. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.K. Mendadkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, ;H. Hrishikesh Amembal, Adv., i/b., Srivastav &amp; Co. for R-2 and ;V.A. Gangal, Amicus Curiae',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-10-16',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ranjana Desai and ;A.A. Sayed, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranjana Desai, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste by birth which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3/1/08 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) with further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued in her favour is valid, legal and subsisting. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents 3 and 4 to handover B Tech degree to her and to release her mark sheets to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was born on 19/3/1986 at Mulund, Mumbai. She was admitted to the Omkar English Medium School, Dombivli, Thane, from where she passed her 10th Standard Examination. She was admitted to Smt. Shardaben Nanavati Science College, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. She passed S.Y.J.C. Examination in the month of June, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As the petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste she applied for a caste certificate to the Deputy Collector, Thane. On 16/2/2001 the Deputy Collector, Thane issued certificate to her. The certificate stated that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste but the certificate was in migrant form. It contained following noting: 'The holder of the certificate is not entitled to any concessions, facilities of any nature extending to Backward Class by the Government of Maharashtra'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to the petitioner this note was unwarranted and was not correct. The petitioner's father, therefore, represented her case before the Deputy Collector, Thane who issued another certificate on 5/8/2004 without the above mentioned note. That certificate states as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel and her family ordinarily resides in Village Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan of Thane district of the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus this new certificate apart from stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar scheduled caste, gave her the benefit of facilities extended to members of scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. Whereas certificate dated 16/2/01 imposed area restriction, certificate dated 5/8/04 removed the area restriction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner then moved the Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate dated 5/8/04. It may be stated here that on the basis of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 the petitioner was granted admission in the first year of B Tech degree course during the academic year 2004-05 in the 3rd respondent college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the validity of her caste certificate, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7675 of 2005 seeking direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide her caste claim expeditiously and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent college not to terminate her admission. On 9/1/06 this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within a period of eight weeks from 9/1/06. In the meantime the petitioner was allowed to prosecute her studies. Despite this order, the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the petitioner's case. The petitioner, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 299 of 2007 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 27/11/07. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within six weeks from 27/11/07 and the petitioner was allowed to appear for 7th Semester of final year of B Tech degree course examination subject to the result of her caste claim. Though she was allowed to prosecute the studies, the results were not declared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. The petitioner's prayer was for directions to respondents 3 and 4 to release her mark sheets and allow her to appear for final B Tech degree examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On 29/1/09 when this petition was being heard for admission in this Court, learned AGP informed the court that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 3/1/08 has invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had not received the copy of the order. This Court directed the respondents to make copy of order dated 3/1/08 available to the petitioner, which was accordingly made available. Thereafter the petition came to be amended. The petitioner deleted her earlier prayers and prayed that order dated 3/1/08 be set aside. The petitioner prayed that her certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane be validated and respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over B Tech. Degree to her. Having noticed that the Deputy Collector of Thane had issued two contrary caste certificates to the petitioner, on 20/4/09 this Court directed him to remain present in the court with record and proceedings. On 22/7/09 this Court again passed a detailed order and directed the Deputy Collector, Thane to bring record of both the certificates to our court. The Deputy Collector, who issued certificate dated 5/8/04 was directed to remain present in our court. The present Deputy Collector was also directed to remain present in our court. Accordingly both the Deputy Collectors remained present. We are, however, informed that record of certificate dated 16/2/01 is not traceable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that the petitioner is giving up her challenge to the Scrutiny Committee's order impugned in this petition. He submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner in fact belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste, that as of today she has completed her B. Tech degree course and that delay in deciding her caste claim is entirely due to the Scrutiny Committee's inaction, respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over degree certificate of B Tech course completed by the petitioner in May 2008 to her. He submitted that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to release the petitioner's mark sheets. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit stating that she is migrant and hence not entitled to any reservation benefits in the State of Maharashtra and that the petitioner will not claim any benefits either in the employment or in post graduate studies or in any other field in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. We appointed Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist us. Mr. Gangal has very ably assisted us. He produced relevant G.Rs. He submitted that Scrutiny Committee's order is unassailable. The petitioner cannot secure two contrary caste certificates from the Competent Authority. He submitted that first certificate is in migrant form and the second certificate is not in migrant form. The petitioner has obtained the second certificate without disclosing the fact that she has obtained the certificate in migrant form from the same Competent Authority. The petitioner ought to have surrendered or got cancelled the first certificate. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. He submitted that as per the relevant G.Rs. the Scrutiny Committees of the State of Maharashtra cannot decide the validity of the caste certificate. She will have to get it validated from Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Gangal submitted that as of today there is no adjudication of the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner has wrongly obtained admission on the basis that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste because she is not entitled to any facilities on that basis in Maharashtra. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the return of her degree certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. At the outset we must note our displeasure about the manner in which the office of the Deputy Collector, Thane has functioned in this matter. In Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2009 (3) Bom. C.R. 497, the Full Bench of this Court was inter alia considering the applicability of the affinity test in proceedings involving caste validation. The Full Bench considered the entire law on the point. The Full Bench referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short). The Full Bench also considered the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 ('the said rules' for short). The Full Bench noted the duties of Competent Authorities who issue caste certificates, the validity of which is decided by the Scrutiny Committees. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. For that purpose the Competent Authority has to consider the evidence produced by the applicant or any other person on his behalf and the statement of the applicant and the material gathered by the Competent Authority. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority exercises quasi judicial powers in arriving at a determination with reference to a claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It has to decide whether the burden to establish his caste has been discharged by the applicant or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Full Bench referred to Section 13 of the said Act which provides for penalty of issuing false certificate. It reads thus;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. '13. Penalty for issuing false Caste Certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Any person or authority performing the functions of Competent Authority under this Act, who intentionally issues a false Caste Certificate, shall on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees or both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except with previous sanction of the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus a person who acts as the Competent Authority can be convicted for issuing false caste certificate. Competent Authorities have to be careful while issuing caste certificates. A very onerous duty is caste on their shoulders. The Competent Authorities cannot issue caste certificate being oblivious of their responsibility. Statement of the applicant and his relatives, material collected and produced before it has to be considered and weighed by the Competent Authorities. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the Deputy Collector, Thane who is the Competent Authority, issued first certificate in migrant form and the same Competent Authority issued another certificate indicating that the petitioner's family is ordinarily residing in Maharashtra. We are not concerned with the person who acts as the Competent Authority. It is possible that the person who issued the earlier certificate has been transferred or has retired. That two different persons have issued two certificates cannot be an answer to this unpardonable conduct. Prima facie it smacks of unholy connivance between the concerned parties. The incumbent of the post of Deputy Collector must see what orders were passed by his predecessor and verify from record whether any caste certificate was issued to the applicant earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. We have seen certificate dated 5/8/04 which has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. This certificate states that it was issued on the basis of Scheduled Caste certificate of the father of the petitioner. On certificate dated 5/8/04 following endorsement is made.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Mr. Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel. Father of Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel of Village - 13271 Shastri Nagar in District - Kanpur, of the State/Union Territory, UP who belong to the Chamar which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State/Union Territory U.P. Issued by the Tahasildar Kanpur Nagar. (Name as prescribed authority) vide their No. 4057, dated 11/10/2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus certificate of the father of the petitioner was before the Deputy Collector, Thane. He should have been, therefore, careful while issuing the certificate to the petitioner to the effect that she ordinarily resides in Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane, when the certificate of the petitioner's father mentioned his address as Shastri Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. It is not disputed before us that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes specified in relation to any other State shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10/8/1950 on which date the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. From 10/8/1950 Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes. There was no material before the Competent Authority to establish that father or grandfather of the petitioner was resident of the State of Maharashtra prior to 10/8/50. Hence issuance of certificate dated 5/8/04 in non-migrant form to the petitioner is beyond comprehension.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since we are told that the record of this certificate is lost, we are not in a position to find out whether in the application made by the petitioner for validity of certificate dated 5/8/04, she had disclosed that earlier certificate dated 16/2/01 was issued in migrant form. We, therefore, asked Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the application preferred by the petitioner's father on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to which certificate dated 5/8/04 was issued. Mr. Mendadkar informed us that he does not have copy of the said application. This reply is also not satisfactory. It is indeed a strange coincidence that the relevant record of the Scrutiny Committee should be lost and at the same time application preferred by the petitioner should also be not available with the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible for us to find out whether the petitioner had disclosed to the Deputy Collector, Thane that she was earlier issued certificate by his office in migrant form. All this smacks of sharp practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Scrutiny Committee has taken extraordinarily long time to pass order. We are not happy about that delay. Had the Scrutiny Committee passed the order expeditiously she could have been stopped from pursuing her studies in Mumbai. Because of the delay caused by the lethargy of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner took benefit of the seat which would have been available to a scheduled caste candidate from Maharashtra. In our opinion, in this case an indepth inquiry needs to be conducted as to how the same Competent Authority issued two contrary certificates, how the record is lost and why the Scrutiny Committee took extraordinarily long time to pass order. We must note here that in several cases, we are informed that records are lost. It is time Secretary of the concerned department of the Government looks into this matter and institutes an inquiry by a person of his confidence because our experience tells us that in many cases issuance of caste certificates by Competent Authority has become a farce. In this the persons who deserve to get benefit of reservation policy are the loosers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. It is now necessary to go to the impugned order. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the Deputy Collector, Thane has issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. The said certificate is in migrant form in which address of the petitioner's father is shown as 'Shastrinagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh'. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes with effect from 10/8/1950 and, therefore, residence of father or grandfather of the petitioner in Maharashtra prior to that date becomes necessary. The Scrutiny Committee has then considered the material in this connection. It appears that in his statement recorded before the Scrutiny Committee on 28/6/04 by the Vigilance Cell father of the petitioner has stated that he is the resident of Kanpur, U.P. and that he was born and educated in U.P. He has further stated that he came to Mumbai for employment. Therefore, the petitioner's residence in Maharashtra is not proved. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that the petitioner submitted one more certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by Deputy Collector, Thane certifying that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. Morever all along her father's address is shown as Kanpur, U.P. and, therefore, in any case the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits in the State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the first certificate dated 16/2/2001 is in migrant form. That has not been cancelled. Till that certificate is cancelled the petitioner cannot get the second caste certificate. Such a course is illegal. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. However, benefits/concessions admissible to their caste will be available to them in their original State only and such certificates should not be verified by the Scrutiny Committee of this State. After so observing the Scrutiny Committee has cancelled and confiscated the caste certificate dated 5/8/04 obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy Collector, Thane, and has returned the first caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 obtained by the petitioner in migrant form from the same Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector, Thane, as per Government Circular dated 21/8/1996. The Scrutiny Committee has clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits in Maharashtra (vide Government Circular dated 24/8/1995).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. We cannot find any fault with the Scrutiny Committee's order. We are entirely in agreement with the Scrutiny Committee's view. The petitioner has applied for certificates twice. She has got one certificate in migrant form certifying that she is a Chamar. She again applied for another certificate without cancelling or surrendering the first certificate. And surprisingly the same Competent Authority issued her a certificate which is not in migrant form so that she can now get all the benefits in Maharashtra. Such a course is illegal and hence not permissible. Under Section 7 of the said Act such a certificate can be confiscated and cancelled. This is prima facie a case of grave misconduct on the part of the Competent Authority for which it may be liable for penalty under Section 13 of the said Act, which we have quoted hereinabove. If the enquiry which we hope the Secretary of the concerned department will conduct as desired by us discloses that the file is lost because of unholy connivance of some persons with the office of the Competent Authority, law must take its course. It is also necessary to find out why the Scrutiny Committee took such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The upshot of the above discussion is that as of today there is no validation of caste claim of the petitioner. No Scrutiny Committee has validated her caste claim. The second certificate having been confiscated and cancelled the petitioner will have to get her first certificate dated 16/2/2001 which is in migrant form validated. As per G.R. dated 21/8/96 she cannot get it validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra and even if she gets it validated she cannot get any benefits available to that caste in Maharashtra. The legal position in that behalf is settled by the Supreme Court. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Ors. : (1990) 3 SCC 130 the petitioner was born in Andhra Pradesh. He claimed to belong to 'Gaudi' Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner had obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate from the Tahsildar and on that basis he got an employment in S T quota in Government of India undertaking in Bombay, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner came to live in Bombay since the age of nine years. The petitioner in due course submitted application for admission to G. S. Medical College, Bombay seeking benefit of reservation in favour of S.Ts. But he was denied the admission on the basis of a circular issued by the Government of India that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. The Constitution Bench was considering whether the person who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of migration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. After considering Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench held that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe in his original State. The Constitution Bench observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to in order to become equals with others but those who go to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In Action Committee v. Union of India and Anr. : (1994) 5 SCC 244, the Supreme Court was considering whether where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B. The Supreme Court followed Marri Chandra's case and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that, if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State 'for the purposes of this Constitution'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Mr. Mendadkar has drawn our attention to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hitesh Murkute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (5) MLJ 454. In our opinion that judgment has no application to the present case. In that case this Court was considering whether a migrant who belonged to a community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any locality which has been divided upon reorganization of States and his caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in such newly formed State is entitled to benefit of reservation in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. This Court held relying on judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (4) MLJ 784 held that such a migrant would be entitled to benefit of reservation even in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. Such are not the facts here. In this case, the petitioner's father belongs to Kanpur, U.P. which was not part of Bombay State prior to State Reorganization Act, 1956 or 1960. This judgment has no application to the present case. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra and Action Committee has been reiterated by it in Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 278. In view of the settled legal position no amount of undertakings or assurances can persuade us to give a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to handover degree certificate to the petitioner as of today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Mendadkar to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2008) 5 SCC 652, wherein caste certificate of the appellant was invalidated because he had produced false certificate. The Supreme Court observed that admission was taken by the appellant 13 years back and degree was awarded to him four years back. The Supreme Court observed that seat given to the appellant could not at that juncture be re-allotted to any other candidate. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has already appeared for B Tech examination and the Scrutiny Committee has delayed in passing order on her application for deciding the validity of the caste, the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Naikwadi's case may be followed in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. We must also refer to Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2008 (1) M.L.J. 715, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner therein was invalidated. The petitioner was granted admission to M.B.B.S. Degree course on scheduled caste reserved seat. The petitioner prayed that since she had completed M.B.B.S. Examination her admission be protected. The Division Bench considered the entire law on the point and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench observed that it is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the said Act wherein stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. Constitutional scheme of reservation has to be protected. Several judgments of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Full Bench which have taken a view that the persons who commit fraud are not entitled to protection of benefits of reservation policy fraudulently taken by them. In any case these submissions cannot be considered by us till the caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the circumstances, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned order dated 3/1/08 is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner's prayer that a direction be given that her degree certificates be returned to her on her filing undertaking is rejected because her caste certificate dated 5/4/04 is cancelled and her caste certificate dated 16/2/01 which is in migrant form has not been validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. Besides the petitioner has wrongly taken admission to the college in Maharashtra on the basis that she is entitled to the benefits of Chamar Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We direct that this judgment along with all the necessary files and a copy of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case (supra) be placed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra who can start an indepth inquiry through a high ranking independent officer of his confidence to find out;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) When the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector Thane had issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 in migrant form to the petitioner that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste making it clear that she is not entitled to any benefits available to that Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra; how can the same Competent Authority issue another certificate dated 5/8/2004, stating to the contrary i.e. stating that the petitioner ordinarily resides in village Dombivali, Taluka Kalyan, Maharashtra, ignoring the caste certificate of the petitioner's father which was before him, that the petitioner's father is a resident of U.P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) Whether the statement made before us that relevant file pertaining to certificate dated 16/2/01 issued in migrant form is lost is correct.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">c) If the file is lost, who is responsible for it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">d) Why did the Scrutiny Committee take such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">e) If the inquiry reveals that the Competent Authority has issued false caste certificate, we expect the Secretary to initiate action under the relevant provisions of the said Act against the Competent Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The inquiry be conducted independently. Any observation made by us as regards the conduct of the Competent Authority, its staff or the petitioner and her father be treated as prima facie observations. It will be open to the petitioner to get her caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 validated from appropriate Scrutiny Committee. In case the petitioner's caste certificate dated 162/2001 is validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee it will be open to her to apply for her degree certificate and at that stage her prayer will be considered in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Needless to say that, if involvement of any staff is disclosed, necessary action must be taken against the staff. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiring officer</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While deciding as to who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs the officer appointed by the Secretary shall take assistance from the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case, particularly conclusions drawn therein. The inquiry be completed within a period of three months from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Action taken report' be submitted to this Court after three months. Office to place this matter on board before the regular bench for directions for the purpose of taking the 'Action taken report' on record after three months i.e. on 18/1/2010.The Registrar General, High Court is directed to immediately forward copy of this judgment to the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)BomCR352; 2010(1)MhLj470',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, ;caste Certificate Scrutiny C',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '367230'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 4(1',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13',
		(int) 3 => 'the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 7',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 13',
		(int) 6 => 'The Constitution Bench',
		(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'the Constitution Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'The Constitution Bench',
		(int) 10 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 11 => 'State Reorganization Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ranjana Desai',
		(int) 1 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 2 => 'Kavita',
		(int) 3 => 'Chandraprakash Goel',
		(int) 4 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
		(int) 5 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 6 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 7 => 'B. Tech',
		(int) 8 => 'Tech',
		(int) 9 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 10 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 11 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 12 => 'Vishnu Thakur',
		(int) 13 => 'Tribes',
		(int) 14 => 'Vimukta Jatis',
		(int) 15 => 'Nomadic Tribes',
		(int) 16 => 'Backward Classes',
		(int) 17 => 'thus;13',
		(int) 18 => 'Caste Certificate.(1',
		(int) 19 => 'Caste Certificate',
		(int) 20 => 'Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel',
		(int) 21 => 'Kavita',
		(int) 22 => 'Shastri Nagar',
		(int) 23 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 24 => 'Kanpur Nagar',
		(int) 25 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
		(int) 26 => 'Shastri Nagar',
		(int) 27 => 'comprehension.15',
		(int) 28 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 29 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 30 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 31 => 'practice.16',
		(int) 32 => 'Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean',
		(int) 33 => 'Seth G. S. Medical College',
		(int) 34 => 'Articles 341',
		(int) 35 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 36 => 'Anr',
		(int) 37 => 'Marri Chandra's',
		(int) 38 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 39 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 40 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 41 => 'Sudhakar Vithal v. State',
		(int) 42 => 'Anr',
		(int) 43 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 44 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 45 => 'M.B.B.S. Degree',
		(int) 46 => 'Caste Scrutiny',
		(int) 47 => 'Taluka Kalyan'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 3 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 4 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 6 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 7 => 'Maharashtra'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 1 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Thane',
		(int) 3 => 'Mulund',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'Thane',
		(int) 6 => 'Ghatkopar',
		(int) 7 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 8 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 9 => 'Thane',
		(int) 10 => 'Thane',
		(int) 11 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 12 => 'Thane',
		(int) 13 => 'Village Dombivli',
		(int) 14 => 'Thane',
		(int) 15 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 16 => 'Thane',
		(int) 17 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 18 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 19 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 20 => 'Thane',
		(int) 21 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 22 => 'C.R.',
		(int) 23 => 'Thane',
		(int) 24 => 'District - Kanpur',
		(int) 25 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 26 => 'Thane',
		(int) 27 => 'District Thane',
		(int) 28 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 29 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 30 => 'Thane',
		(int) 31 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 32 => 'Thane',
		(int) 33 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 34 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 35 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 36 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 37 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 39 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 40 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 41 => 'Thane',
		(int) 42 => 'Thane',
		(int) 43 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 44 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 45 => 'Andhra',
		(int) 46 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 47 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 48 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 49 => 'S.Ts',
		(int) 50 => 'States',
		(int) 51 => 'States',
		(int) 52 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 53 => 'Marri Chandra and',
		(int) 54 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 55 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 56 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 57 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 58 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 59 => 'Mantralaya',
		(int) 60 => 'Mumbai'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 1 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 2 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 3 => '3',
		(int) 4 => '4',
		(int) 5 => '2004.4',
		(int) 6 => '5/8/2004',
		(int) 7 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 8 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 9 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 10 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 11 => '9/1/06',
		(int) 12 => '9/1/06',
		(int) 13 => '299',
		(int) 14 => '27/11/07',
		(int) 15 => '27/11/07',
		(int) 16 => '7/1/08',
		(int) 17 => '31/5/08',
		(int) 18 => '3',
		(int) 19 => '4',
		(int) 20 => '29/1/09',
		(int) 21 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 22 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 23 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 24 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 25 => '3',
		(int) 26 => '4',
		(int) 27 => 'two',
		(int) 28 => '20/4/09',
		(int) 29 => '22/7/09',
		(int) 30 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 31 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 32 => '3',
		(int) 33 => '4',
		(int) 34 => '3',
		(int) 35 => '4',
		(int) 36 => 'two',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '9',
		(int) 39 => '4',
		(int) 40 => '13',
		(int) 41 => 'less than',
		(int) 42 => 'two',
		(int) 43 => 'two',
		(int) 44 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 45 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 46 => '11/10/2000Thus',
		(int) 47 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 48 => '10/8/50',
		(int) 49 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 50 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 51 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 52 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => '28/6/04',
		(int) 55 => 'one',
		(int) 56 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 57 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 58 => '24/8/1995).18',
		(int) 59 => 'one',
		(int) 60 => '3',
		(int) 61 => '130',
		(int) 62 => '342',
		(int) 63 => '5',
		(int) 64 => 'two',
		(int) 65 => '5',
		(int) 66 => '454',
		(int) 67 => '4',
		(int) 68 => '2',
		(int) 69 => '278',
		(int) 70 => '5',
		(int) 71 => '652',
		(int) 72 => '1',
		(int) 73 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 74 => '5/4/04',
		(int) 75 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 76 => '5/8/2004',
		(int) 77 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 78 => '18/1/2010.The'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai Division',
		(int) 2 => 'Scrutiny Committee'',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 4 => 'Standard Examination',
		(int) 5 => 'Smt',
		(int) 6 => 'Nanavati Science College',
		(int) 7 => 'the Government of Maharashtra'.5',
		(int) 8 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 9 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 10 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 11 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 14 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 15 => 'Contempt Petition No',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 18 => '7th Semester of final year',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'B Tech',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 25 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 26 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 27 => 'the State of Maharashtra.11',
		(int) 28 => 'Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 29 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 30 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 31 => 'Scrutiny',
		(int) 32 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
		(int) 33 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 36 => 'Regulation of Issuance and Verification',
		(int) 37 => 'Competent Authorities',
		(int) 38 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
		(int) 39 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 40 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 41 => 'The Competent Authority',
		(int) 42 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 43 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 44 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 45 => 'The Competent Authority',
		(int) 46 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 47 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 48 => 'Competent Authorities',
		(int) 49 => 'The Competent Authorities',
		(int) 50 => 'the Competent Authorities',
		(int) 51 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 52 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 53 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 54 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 55 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 56 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 57 => 'the State/Union Territory',
		(int) 58 => 'the State/Union',
		(int) 59 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 60 => 'State',
		(int) 61 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 62 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 63 => 'Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 64 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 65 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 66 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 67 => 'the Deputy Collector',
		(int) 68 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 69 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 70 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 71 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 72 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 73 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 74 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 75 => 'Uttar Pradesh'',
		(int) 76 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 77 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 78 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 79 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 80 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 81 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 82 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 83 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 84 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 85 => 'the Government Circular',
		(int) 86 => 'State',
		(int) 87 => 'State',
		(int) 88 => 'State',
		(int) 89 => 'the Scrutiny Committee of this State',
		(int) 90 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 91 => 'Government Circular',
		(int) 92 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 93 => 'Maharashtra (vide Government Circular',
		(int) 94 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 95 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 96 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 97 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 98 => 'the concerned department',
		(int) 99 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 100 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 101 => 'No Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 102 => 'the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra',
		(int) 103 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Scheduled Tribe Certificate',
		(int) 105 => 'Government of India',
		(int) 106 => 'G. S. Medical College',
		(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 108 => 'State',
		(int) 109 => 'State',
		(int) 110 => 'State',
		(int) 111 => 'State',
		(int) 112 => 'the State of migration.20',
		(int) 113 => 'State',
		(int) 114 => 'Action Committee v. Union of India',
		(int) 115 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 116 => 'State',
		(int) 117 => 'State',
		(int) 118 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes',
		(int) 120 => 'State',
		(int) 121 => 'State',
		(int) 122 => 'State',
		(int) 123 => 'State A',
		(int) 124 => 'State',
		(int) 125 => 'State',
		(int) 126 => 'Hitesh Murkute',
		(int) 127 => 'Court',
		(int) 128 => 'State',
		(int) 129 => 'State',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 132 => 'State',
		(int) 133 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 134 => 'Bombay State',
		(int) 135 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 136 => 'Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board',
		(int) 137 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 138 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 139 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 140 => 'Tribe',
		(int) 141 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 142 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 143 => 'Yogesh Naikwadi's',
		(int) 144 => 'Priyanka Omprakash Panwar',
		(int) 145 => 'M.B.B.S. Examination',
		(int) 146 => 'Court',
		(int) 147 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 148 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 149 => 'Court',
		(int) 150 => 'the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra',
		(int) 151 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 152 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 153 => 'Dombivali',
		(int) 154 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 155 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 156 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 157 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 158 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 159 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 160 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 161 => 'Court',
		(int) 162 => 'Court',
		(int) 163 => 'Registrar General',
		(int) 164 => 'the Secretary Social Welfare Department'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '19/3/1986',
		(int) 1 => 'the month of June',
		(int) 2 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 3 => 'the first year',
		(int) 4 => 'the academic year 2004-05',
		(int) 5 => '2005',
		(int) 6 => 'a period of',
		(int) 7 => 'eight weeks',
		(int) 8 => 'six weeks',
		(int) 9 => 'March, 2008',
		(int) 10 => 'the month of May, 2008',
		(int) 11 => 'today',
		(int) 12 => 'May 2008',
		(int) 13 => 'today',
		(int) 14 => '2009',
		(int) 15 => '2000',
		(int) 16 => '2003',
		(int) 17 => 'less than six months',
		(int) 18 => 'two years',
		(int) 19 => '13271',
		(int) 20 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 21 => '1950',
		(int) 22 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 23 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 24 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 25 => '24/8/1995',
		(int) 26 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 27 => '21/8/1996',
		(int) 28 => 'today',
		(int) 29 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 30 => '1990',
		(int) 31 => 'the age of nine years',
		(int) 32 => '1994',
		(int) 33 => '2007',
		(int) 34 => '2004',
		(int) 35 => '1956',
		(int) 36 => '1960',
		(int) 37 => '2009',
		(int) 38 => '2008',
		(int) 39 => '13 years',
		(int) 40 => 'four years back',
		(int) 41 => '2008',
		(int) 42 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 43 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 44 => '162/2001',
		(int) 45 => 'a period of',
		(int) 46 => 'three months',
		(int) 47 => 'today',
		(int) 48 => 'three months',
		(int) 49 => 'three months'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10th',
		(int) 1 => '3rd',
		(int) 2 => '3rd',
		(int) 3 => '4th',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'second',
		(int) 6 => 'second',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'second',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'second',
		(int) 12 => 'first',
		(int) 13 => 'first',
		(int) 14 => 'second',
		(int) 15 => 'first',
		(int) 16 => '3rd',
		(int) 17 => '4th'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Full Bench of',
		(int) 1 => 'The Full Bench',
		(int) 2 => 'The Full Bench',
		(int) 3 => 'Dombivli',
		(int) 4 => 'the Full Bench',
		(int) 5 => 'the Full Bench of',
		(int) 6 => 'the Full Bench of'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 1 => 'Subhash Chandra'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his',
		(int) 1 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 2 => 'Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '715'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '367230',
		'acts' => 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Sections 4(1), 7 and 13; State Reorganization Act, 1956; Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 - Rule 4(9); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226, 341 and 342',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 4319 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. We are not happy about that delay. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.K. Mendadkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, ;H. Hrishikesh Amembal, Adv., i/b., Srivastav &amp; Co. for R-2 and ;V.A. Gangal, Amicus Curiae',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-10-16',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ranjana Desai and ;A.A. Sayed, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranjana Desai, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste by birth which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3/1/08 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) with further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued in her favour is valid, legal and subsisting. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents 3 and 4 to handover B Tech degree to her and to release her mark sheets to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was born on 19/3/1986 at Mulund, Mumbai. She was admitted to the Omkar English Medium School, Dombivli, Thane, from where she passed her 10th Standard Examination. She was admitted to Smt. Shardaben Nanavati Science College, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. She passed S.Y.J.C. Examination in the month of June, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As the petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste she applied for a caste certificate to the Deputy Collector, Thane. On 16/2/2001 the Deputy Collector, Thane issued certificate to her. The certificate stated that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste but the certificate was in migrant form. It contained following noting: 'The holder of the certificate is not entitled to any concessions, facilities of any nature extending to Backward Class by the Government of Maharashtra'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to the petitioner this note was unwarranted and was not correct. The petitioner's father, therefore, represented her case before the Deputy Collector, Thane who issued another certificate on 5/8/2004 without the above mentioned note. That certificate states as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel and her family ordinarily resides in Village Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan of Thane district of the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus this new certificate apart from stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar scheduled caste, gave her the benefit of facilities extended to members of scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. Whereas certificate dated 16/2/01 imposed area restriction, certificate dated 5/8/04 removed the area restriction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner then moved the Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate dated 5/8/04. It may be stated here that on the basis of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 the petitioner was granted admission in the first year of B Tech degree course during the academic year 2004-05 in the 3rd respondent college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the validity of her caste certificate, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7675 of 2005 seeking direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide her caste claim expeditiously and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent college not to terminate her admission. On 9/1/06 this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within a period of eight weeks from 9/1/06. In the meantime the petitioner was allowed to prosecute her studies. Despite this order, the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the petitioner's case. The petitioner, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 299 of 2007 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 27/11/07. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within six weeks from 27/11/07 and the petitioner was allowed to appear for 7th Semester of final year of B Tech degree course examination subject to the result of her caste claim. Though she was allowed to prosecute the studies, the results were not declared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. The petitioner's prayer was for directions to respondents 3 and 4 to release her mark sheets and allow her to appear for final B Tech degree examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On 29/1/09 when this petition was being heard for admission in this Court, learned AGP informed the court that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 3/1/08 has invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had not received the copy of the order. This Court directed the respondents to make copy of order dated 3/1/08 available to the petitioner, which was accordingly made available. Thereafter the petition came to be amended. The petitioner deleted her earlier prayers and prayed that order dated 3/1/08 be set aside. The petitioner prayed that her certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane be validated and respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over B Tech. Degree to her. Having noticed that the Deputy Collector of Thane had issued two contrary caste certificates to the petitioner, on 20/4/09 this Court directed him to remain present in the court with record and proceedings. On 22/7/09 this Court again passed a detailed order and directed the Deputy Collector, Thane to bring record of both the certificates to our court. The Deputy Collector, who issued certificate dated 5/8/04 was directed to remain present in our court. The present Deputy Collector was also directed to remain present in our court. Accordingly both the Deputy Collectors remained present. We are, however, informed that record of certificate dated 16/2/01 is not traceable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that the petitioner is giving up her challenge to the Scrutiny Committee's order impugned in this petition. He submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner in fact belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste, that as of today she has completed her B. Tech degree course and that delay in deciding her caste claim is entirely due to the Scrutiny Committee's inaction, respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over degree certificate of B Tech course completed by the petitioner in May 2008 to her. He submitted that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to release the petitioner's mark sheets. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit stating that she is migrant and hence not entitled to any reservation benefits in the State of Maharashtra and that the petitioner will not claim any benefits either in the employment or in post graduate studies or in any other field in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. We appointed Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist us. Mr. Gangal has very ably assisted us. He produced relevant G.Rs. He submitted that Scrutiny Committee's order is unassailable. The petitioner cannot secure two contrary caste certificates from the Competent Authority. He submitted that first certificate is in migrant form and the second certificate is not in migrant form. The petitioner has obtained the second certificate without disclosing the fact that she has obtained the certificate in migrant form from the same Competent Authority. The petitioner ought to have surrendered or got cancelled the first certificate. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. He submitted that as per the relevant G.Rs. the Scrutiny Committees of the State of Maharashtra cannot decide the validity of the caste certificate. She will have to get it validated from Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Gangal submitted that as of today there is no adjudication of the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner has wrongly obtained admission on the basis that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste because she is not entitled to any facilities on that basis in Maharashtra. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the return of her degree certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. At the outset we must note our displeasure about the manner in which the office of the Deputy Collector, Thane has functioned in this matter. In Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2009 (3) Bom. C.R. 497, the Full Bench of this Court was inter alia considering the applicability of the affinity test in proceedings involving caste validation. The Full Bench considered the entire law on the point. The Full Bench referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short). The Full Bench also considered the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 ('the said rules' for short). The Full Bench noted the duties of Competent Authorities who issue caste certificates, the validity of which is decided by the Scrutiny Committees. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. For that purpose the Competent Authority has to consider the evidence produced by the applicant or any other person on his behalf and the statement of the applicant and the material gathered by the Competent Authority. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority exercises quasi judicial powers in arriving at a determination with reference to a claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It has to decide whether the burden to establish his caste has been discharged by the applicant or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Full Bench referred to Section 13 of the said Act which provides for penalty of issuing false certificate. It reads thus;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. '13. Penalty for issuing false Caste Certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Any person or authority performing the functions of Competent Authority under this Act, who intentionally issues a false Caste Certificate, shall on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees or both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except with previous sanction of the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus a person who acts as the Competent Authority can be convicted for issuing false caste certificate. Competent Authorities have to be careful while issuing caste certificates. A very onerous duty is caste on their shoulders. The Competent Authorities cannot issue caste certificate being oblivious of their responsibility. Statement of the applicant and his relatives, material collected and produced before it has to be considered and weighed by the Competent Authorities. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the Deputy Collector, Thane who is the Competent Authority, issued first certificate in migrant form and the same Competent Authority issued another certificate indicating that the petitioner's family is ordinarily residing in Maharashtra. We are not concerned with the person who acts as the Competent Authority. It is possible that the person who issued the earlier certificate has been transferred or has retired. That two different persons have issued two certificates cannot be an answer to this unpardonable conduct. Prima facie it smacks of unholy connivance between the concerned parties. The incumbent of the post of Deputy Collector must see what orders were passed by his predecessor and verify from record whether any caste certificate was issued to the applicant earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. We have seen certificate dated 5/8/04 which has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. This certificate states that it was issued on the basis of Scheduled Caste certificate of the father of the petitioner. On certificate dated 5/8/04 following endorsement is made.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Mr. Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel. Father of Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel of Village - 13271 Shastri Nagar in District - Kanpur, of the State/Union Territory, UP who belong to the Chamar which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State/Union Territory U.P. Issued by the Tahasildar Kanpur Nagar. (Name as prescribed authority) vide their No. 4057, dated 11/10/2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus certificate of the father of the petitioner was before the Deputy Collector, Thane. He should have been, therefore, careful while issuing the certificate to the petitioner to the effect that she ordinarily resides in Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane, when the certificate of the petitioner's father mentioned his address as Shastri Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. It is not disputed before us that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes specified in relation to any other State shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10/8/1950 on which date the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. From 10/8/1950 Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes. There was no material before the Competent Authority to establish that father or grandfather of the petitioner was resident of the State of Maharashtra prior to 10/8/50. Hence issuance of certificate dated 5/8/04 in non-migrant form to the petitioner is beyond comprehension.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since we are told that the record of this certificate is lost, we are not in a position to find out whether in the application made by the petitioner for validity of certificate dated 5/8/04, she had disclosed that earlier certificate dated 16/2/01 was issued in migrant form. We, therefore, asked Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the application preferred by the petitioner's father on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to which certificate dated 5/8/04 was issued. Mr. Mendadkar informed us that he does not have copy of the said application. This reply is also not satisfactory. It is indeed a strange coincidence that the relevant record of the Scrutiny Committee should be lost and at the same time application preferred by the petitioner should also be not available with the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible for us to find out whether the petitioner had disclosed to the Deputy Collector, Thane that she was earlier issued certificate by his office in migrant form. All this smacks of sharp practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Scrutiny Committee has taken extraordinarily long time to pass order. We are not happy about that delay. Had the Scrutiny Committee passed the order expeditiously she could have been stopped from pursuing her studies in Mumbai. Because of the delay caused by the lethargy of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner took benefit of the seat which would have been available to a scheduled caste candidate from Maharashtra. In our opinion, in this case an indepth inquiry needs to be conducted as to how the same Competent Authority issued two contrary certificates, how the record is lost and why the Scrutiny Committee took extraordinarily long time to pass order. We must note here that in several cases, we are informed that records are lost. It is time Secretary of the concerned department of the Government looks into this matter and institutes an inquiry by a person of his confidence because our experience tells us that in many cases issuance of caste certificates by Competent Authority has become a farce. In this the persons who deserve to get benefit of reservation policy are the loosers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. It is now necessary to go to the impugned order. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the Deputy Collector, Thane has issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. The said certificate is in migrant form in which address of the petitioner's father is shown as 'Shastrinagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh'. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes with effect from 10/8/1950 and, therefore, residence of father or grandfather of the petitioner in Maharashtra prior to that date becomes necessary. The Scrutiny Committee has then considered the material in this connection. It appears that in his statement recorded before the Scrutiny Committee on 28/6/04 by the Vigilance Cell father of the petitioner has stated that he is the resident of Kanpur, U.P. and that he was born and educated in U.P. He has further stated that he came to Mumbai for employment. Therefore, the petitioner's residence in Maharashtra is not proved. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that the petitioner submitted one more certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by Deputy Collector, Thane certifying that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. Morever all along her father's address is shown as Kanpur, U.P. and, therefore, in any case the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits in the State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the first certificate dated 16/2/2001 is in migrant form. That has not been cancelled. Till that certificate is cancelled the petitioner cannot get the second caste certificate. Such a course is illegal. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. However, benefits/concessions admissible to their caste will be available to them in their original State only and such certificates should not be verified by the Scrutiny Committee of this State. After so observing the Scrutiny Committee has cancelled and confiscated the caste certificate dated 5/8/04 obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy Collector, Thane, and has returned the first caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 obtained by the petitioner in migrant form from the same Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector, Thane, as per Government Circular dated 21/8/1996. The Scrutiny Committee has clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits in Maharashtra (vide Government Circular dated 24/8/1995).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. We cannot find any fault with the Scrutiny Committee's order. We are entirely in agreement with the Scrutiny Committee's view. The petitioner has applied for certificates twice. She has got one certificate in migrant form certifying that she is a Chamar. She again applied for another certificate without cancelling or surrendering the first certificate. And surprisingly the same Competent Authority issued her a certificate which is not in migrant form so that she can now get all the benefits in Maharashtra. Such a course is illegal and hence not permissible. Under Section 7 of the said Act such a certificate can be confiscated and cancelled. This is prima facie a case of grave misconduct on the part of the Competent Authority for which it may be liable for penalty under Section 13 of the said Act, which we have quoted hereinabove. If the enquiry which we hope the Secretary of the concerned department will conduct as desired by us discloses that the file is lost because of unholy connivance of some persons with the office of the Competent Authority, law must take its course. It is also necessary to find out why the Scrutiny Committee took such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The upshot of the above discussion is that as of today there is no validation of caste claim of the petitioner. No Scrutiny Committee has validated her caste claim. The second certificate having been confiscated and cancelled the petitioner will have to get her first certificate dated 16/2/2001 which is in migrant form validated. As per G.R. dated 21/8/96 she cannot get it validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra and even if she gets it validated she cannot get any benefits available to that caste in Maharashtra. The legal position in that behalf is settled by the Supreme Court. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Ors. : (1990) 3 SCC 130 the petitioner was born in Andhra Pradesh. He claimed to belong to 'Gaudi' Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner had obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate from the Tahsildar and on that basis he got an employment in S T quota in Government of India undertaking in Bombay, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner came to live in Bombay since the age of nine years. The petitioner in due course submitted application for admission to G. S. Medical College, Bombay seeking benefit of reservation in favour of S.Ts. But he was denied the admission on the basis of a circular issued by the Government of India that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. The Constitution Bench was considering whether the person who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of migration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. After considering Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench held that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe in his original State. The Constitution Bench observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to in order to become equals with others but those who go to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In Action Committee v. Union of India and Anr. : (1994) 5 SCC 244, the Supreme Court was considering whether where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B. The Supreme Court followed Marri Chandra's case and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that, if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State 'for the purposes of this Constitution'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Mr. Mendadkar has drawn our attention to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hitesh Murkute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (5) MLJ 454. In our opinion that judgment has no application to the present case. In that case this Court was considering whether a migrant who belonged to a community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any locality which has been divided upon reorganization of States and his caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in such newly formed State is entitled to benefit of reservation in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. This Court held relying on judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (4) MLJ 784 held that such a migrant would be entitled to benefit of reservation even in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. Such are not the facts here. In this case, the petitioner's father belongs to Kanpur, U.P. which was not part of Bombay State prior to State Reorganization Act, 1956 or 1960. This judgment has no application to the present case. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra and Action Committee has been reiterated by it in Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 278. In view of the settled legal position no amount of undertakings or assurances can persuade us to give a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to handover degree certificate to the petitioner as of today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Mendadkar to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2008) 5 SCC 652, wherein caste certificate of the appellant was invalidated because he had produced false certificate. The Supreme Court observed that admission was taken by the appellant 13 years back and degree was awarded to him four years back. The Supreme Court observed that seat given to the appellant could not at that juncture be re-allotted to any other candidate. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has already appeared for B Tech examination and the Scrutiny Committee has delayed in passing order on her application for deciding the validity of the caste, the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Naikwadi's case may be followed in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. We must also refer to Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2008 (1) M.L.J. 715, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner therein was invalidated. The petitioner was granted admission to M.B.B.S. Degree course on scheduled caste reserved seat. The petitioner prayed that since she had completed M.B.B.S. Examination her admission be protected. The Division Bench considered the entire law on the point and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench observed that it is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the said Act wherein stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. Constitutional scheme of reservation has to be protected. Several judgments of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Full Bench which have taken a view that the persons who commit fraud are not entitled to protection of benefits of reservation policy fraudulently taken by them. In any case these submissions cannot be considered by us till the caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the circumstances, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned order dated 3/1/08 is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner's prayer that a direction be given that her degree certificates be returned to her on her filing undertaking is rejected because her caste certificate dated 5/4/04 is cancelled and her caste certificate dated 16/2/01 which is in migrant form has not been validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. Besides the petitioner has wrongly taken admission to the college in Maharashtra on the basis that she is entitled to the benefits of Chamar Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We direct that this judgment along with all the necessary files and a copy of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case (supra) be placed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra who can start an indepth inquiry through a high ranking independent officer of his confidence to find out;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) When the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector Thane had issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 in migrant form to the petitioner that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste making it clear that she is not entitled to any benefits available to that Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra; how can the same Competent Authority issue another certificate dated 5/8/2004, stating to the contrary i.e. stating that the petitioner ordinarily resides in village Dombivali, Taluka Kalyan, Maharashtra, ignoring the caste certificate of the petitioner's father which was before him, that the petitioner's father is a resident of U.P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) Whether the statement made before us that relevant file pertaining to certificate dated 16/2/01 issued in migrant form is lost is correct.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">c) If the file is lost, who is responsible for it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">d) Why did the Scrutiny Committee take such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">e) If the inquiry reveals that the Competent Authority has issued false caste certificate, we expect the Secretary to initiate action under the relevant provisions of the said Act against the Competent Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The inquiry be conducted independently. Any observation made by us as regards the conduct of the Competent Authority, its staff or the petitioner and her father be treated as prima facie observations. It will be open to the petitioner to get her caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 validated from appropriate Scrutiny Committee. In case the petitioner's caste certificate dated 162/2001 is validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee it will be open to her to apply for her degree certificate and at that stage her prayer will be considered in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Needless to say that, if involvement of any staff is disclosed, necessary action must be taken against the staff. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiring officer</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While deciding as to who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs the officer appointed by the Secretary shall take assistance from the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case, particularly conclusions drawn therein. The inquiry be completed within a period of three months from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Action taken report' be submitted to this Court after three months. Office to place this matter on board before the regular bench for directions for the purpose of taking the 'Action taken report' on record after three months i.e. on 18/1/2010.The Registrar General, High Court is directed to immediately forward copy of this judgment to the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)BomCR352; 2010(1)MhLj470',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, ;caste Certificate Scrutiny C',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '367230'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 4(1',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 13',
			(int) 3 => 'the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 7',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 13',
			(int) 6 => 'The Constitution Bench',
			(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 8 => 'the Constitution Bench',
			(int) 9 => 'The Constitution Bench',
			(int) 10 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 11 => 'State Reorganization Act'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Ranjana Desai',
			(int) 1 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 2 => 'Kavita',
			(int) 3 => 'Chandraprakash Goel',
			(int) 4 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
			(int) 5 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 6 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 7 => 'B. Tech',
			(int) 8 => 'Tech',
			(int) 9 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 10 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 11 => 'Gangal',
			(int) 12 => 'Vishnu Thakur',
			(int) 13 => 'Tribes',
			(int) 14 => 'Vimukta Jatis',
			(int) 15 => 'Nomadic Tribes',
			(int) 16 => 'Backward Classes',
			(int) 17 => 'thus;13',
			(int) 18 => 'Caste Certificate.(1',
			(int) 19 => 'Caste Certificate',
			(int) 20 => 'Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel',
			(int) 21 => 'Kavita',
			(int) 22 => 'Shastri Nagar',
			(int) 23 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 24 => 'Kanpur Nagar',
			(int) 25 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
			(int) 26 => 'Shastri Nagar',
			(int) 27 => 'comprehension.15',
			(int) 28 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 29 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 30 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 31 => 'practice.16',
			(int) 32 => 'Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean',
			(int) 33 => 'Seth G. S. Medical College',
			(int) 34 => 'Articles 341',
			(int) 35 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 36 => 'Anr',
			(int) 37 => 'Marri Chandra's',
			(int) 38 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 39 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 40 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 41 => 'Sudhakar Vithal v. State',
			(int) 42 => 'Anr',
			(int) 43 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 44 => 'Mendadkar',
			(int) 45 => 'M.B.B.S. Degree',
			(int) 46 => 'Caste Scrutiny',
			(int) 47 => 'Taluka Kalyan'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 3 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 4 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 6 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 7 => 'Maharashtra'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 1 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 2 => 'Thane',
			(int) 3 => 'Mulund',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'Thane',
			(int) 6 => 'Ghatkopar',
			(int) 7 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 8 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 9 => 'Thane',
			(int) 10 => 'Thane',
			(int) 11 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 12 => 'Thane',
			(int) 13 => 'Village Dombivli',
			(int) 14 => 'Thane',
			(int) 15 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 16 => 'Thane',
			(int) 17 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 18 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 19 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 20 => 'Thane',
			(int) 21 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 22 => 'C.R.',
			(int) 23 => 'Thane',
			(int) 24 => 'District - Kanpur',
			(int) 25 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 26 => 'Thane',
			(int) 27 => 'District Thane',
			(int) 28 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 29 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 30 => 'Thane',
			(int) 31 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 32 => 'Thane',
			(int) 33 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 34 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 35 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 36 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 37 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 38 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 39 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 40 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 41 => 'Thane',
			(int) 42 => 'Thane',
			(int) 43 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 44 => 'G.R.',
			(int) 45 => 'Andhra',
			(int) 46 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 47 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 48 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 49 => 'S.Ts',
			(int) 50 => 'States',
			(int) 51 => 'States',
			(int) 52 => 'Kanpur',
			(int) 53 => 'Marri Chandra and',
			(int) 54 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 55 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 56 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 57 => 'Chamar',
			(int) 58 => 'Shilpa',
			(int) 59 => 'Mantralaya',
			(int) 60 => 'Mumbai'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 1 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 2 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 3 => '3',
			(int) 4 => '4',
			(int) 5 => '2004.4',
			(int) 6 => '5/8/2004',
			(int) 7 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 8 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 9 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 10 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 11 => '9/1/06',
			(int) 12 => '9/1/06',
			(int) 13 => '299',
			(int) 14 => '27/11/07',
			(int) 15 => '27/11/07',
			(int) 16 => '7/1/08',
			(int) 17 => '31/5/08',
			(int) 18 => '3',
			(int) 19 => '4',
			(int) 20 => '29/1/09',
			(int) 21 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 22 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 23 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 24 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 25 => '3',
			(int) 26 => '4',
			(int) 27 => 'two',
			(int) 28 => '20/4/09',
			(int) 29 => '22/7/09',
			(int) 30 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 31 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 32 => '3',
			(int) 33 => '4',
			(int) 34 => '3',
			(int) 35 => '4',
			(int) 36 => 'two',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '9',
			(int) 39 => '4',
			(int) 40 => '13',
			(int) 41 => 'less than',
			(int) 42 => 'two',
			(int) 43 => 'two',
			(int) 44 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 45 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 46 => '11/10/2000Thus',
			(int) 47 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 48 => '10/8/50',
			(int) 49 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 50 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 51 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 52 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => '28/6/04',
			(int) 55 => 'one',
			(int) 56 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 57 => '5/8/04',
			(int) 58 => '24/8/1995).18',
			(int) 59 => 'one',
			(int) 60 => '3',
			(int) 61 => '130',
			(int) 62 => '342',
			(int) 63 => '5',
			(int) 64 => 'two',
			(int) 65 => '5',
			(int) 66 => '454',
			(int) 67 => '4',
			(int) 68 => '2',
			(int) 69 => '278',
			(int) 70 => '5',
			(int) 71 => '652',
			(int) 72 => '1',
			(int) 73 => '3/1/08',
			(int) 74 => '5/4/04',
			(int) 75 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 76 => '5/8/2004',
			(int) 77 => '16/2/01',
			(int) 78 => '18/1/2010.The'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai Division',
			(int) 2 => 'Scrutiny Committee'',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 4 => 'Standard Examination',
			(int) 5 => 'Smt',
			(int) 6 => 'Nanavati Science College',
			(int) 7 => 'the Government of Maharashtra'.5',
			(int) 8 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 9 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 10 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 11 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 12 => 'Court',
			(int) 13 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 14 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 15 => 'Contempt Petition No',
			(int) 16 => 'Court',
			(int) 17 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 18 => '7th Semester of final year',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 21 => 'Court',
			(int) 22 => 'B Tech',
			(int) 23 => 'Court',
			(int) 24 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 25 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 26 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 27 => 'the State of Maharashtra.11',
			(int) 28 => 'Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 29 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 30 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 31 => 'Scrutiny',
			(int) 32 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
			(int) 33 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 36 => 'Regulation of Issuance and Verification',
			(int) 37 => 'Competent Authorities',
			(int) 38 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
			(int) 39 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 40 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 41 => 'The Competent Authority',
			(int) 42 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 43 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 44 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 45 => 'The Competent Authority',
			(int) 46 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 47 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 48 => 'Competent Authorities',
			(int) 49 => 'The Competent Authorities',
			(int) 50 => 'the Competent Authorities',
			(int) 51 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 52 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 53 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 54 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 55 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 56 => 'Scheduled Caste',
			(int) 57 => 'the State/Union Territory',
			(int) 58 => 'the State/Union',
			(int) 59 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 60 => 'State',
			(int) 61 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 62 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 63 => 'Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 64 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 65 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 66 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 67 => 'the Deputy Collector',
			(int) 68 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 69 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 70 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 71 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 72 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 73 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 74 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 75 => 'Uttar Pradesh'',
			(int) 76 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 77 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 78 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 79 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 80 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 81 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 82 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 83 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 84 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 85 => 'the Government Circular',
			(int) 86 => 'State',
			(int) 87 => 'State',
			(int) 88 => 'State',
			(int) 89 => 'the Scrutiny Committee of this State',
			(int) 90 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 91 => 'Government Circular',
			(int) 92 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 93 => 'Maharashtra (vide Government Circular',
			(int) 94 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 95 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
			(int) 96 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 97 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 98 => 'the concerned department',
			(int) 99 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 100 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 101 => 'No Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 102 => 'the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra',
			(int) 103 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 104 => 'Scheduled Tribe Certificate',
			(int) 105 => 'Government of India',
			(int) 106 => 'G. S. Medical College',
			(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
			(int) 108 => 'State',
			(int) 109 => 'State',
			(int) 110 => 'State',
			(int) 111 => 'State',
			(int) 112 => 'the State of migration.20',
			(int) 113 => 'State',
			(int) 114 => 'Action Committee v. Union of India',
			(int) 115 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 116 => 'State',
			(int) 117 => 'State',
			(int) 118 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 119 => 'Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes',
			(int) 120 => 'State',
			(int) 121 => 'State',
			(int) 122 => 'State',
			(int) 123 => 'State A',
			(int) 124 => 'State',
			(int) 125 => 'State',
			(int) 126 => 'Hitesh Murkute',
			(int) 127 => 'Court',
			(int) 128 => 'State',
			(int) 129 => 'State',
			(int) 130 => 'Court',
			(int) 131 => 'MLJ',
			(int) 132 => 'State',
			(int) 133 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 134 => 'Bombay State',
			(int) 135 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 136 => 'Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board',
			(int) 137 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 138 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 139 => 'The Supreme Court',
			(int) 140 => 'Tribe',
			(int) 141 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 142 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 143 => 'Yogesh Naikwadi's',
			(int) 144 => 'Priyanka Omprakash Panwar',
			(int) 145 => 'M.B.B.S. Examination',
			(int) 146 => 'Court',
			(int) 147 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 148 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 149 => 'Court',
			(int) 150 => 'the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra',
			(int) 151 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 152 => 'Competent Authority',
			(int) 153 => 'Dombivali',
			(int) 154 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 155 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 156 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 157 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 158 => 'the Competent Authority',
			(int) 159 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 160 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
			(int) 161 => 'Court',
			(int) 162 => 'Court',
			(int) 163 => 'Registrar General',
			(int) 164 => 'the Secretary Social Welfare Department'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '19/3/1986',
			(int) 1 => 'the month of June',
			(int) 2 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 3 => 'the first year',
			(int) 4 => 'the academic year 2004-05',
			(int) 5 => '2005',
			(int) 6 => 'a period of',
			(int) 7 => 'eight weeks',
			(int) 8 => 'six weeks',
			(int) 9 => 'March, 2008',
			(int) 10 => 'the month of May, 2008',
			(int) 11 => 'today',
			(int) 12 => 'May 2008',
			(int) 13 => 'today',
			(int) 14 => '2009',
			(int) 15 => '2000',
			(int) 16 => '2003',
			(int) 17 => 'less than six months',
			(int) 18 => 'two years',
			(int) 19 => '13271',
			(int) 20 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 21 => '1950',
			(int) 22 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 23 => '10/8/1950',
			(int) 24 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 25 => '24/8/1995',
			(int) 26 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 27 => '21/8/1996',
			(int) 28 => 'today',
			(int) 29 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 30 => '1990',
			(int) 31 => 'the age of nine years',
			(int) 32 => '1994',
			(int) 33 => '2007',
			(int) 34 => '2004',
			(int) 35 => '1956',
			(int) 36 => '1960',
			(int) 37 => '2009',
			(int) 38 => '2008',
			(int) 39 => '13 years',
			(int) 40 => 'four years back',
			(int) 41 => '2008',
			(int) 42 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 43 => '16/2/2001',
			(int) 44 => '162/2001',
			(int) 45 => 'a period of',
			(int) 46 => 'three months',
			(int) 47 => 'today',
			(int) 48 => 'three months',
			(int) 49 => 'three months'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10th',
			(int) 1 => '3rd',
			(int) 2 => '3rd',
			(int) 3 => '4th',
			(int) 4 => 'first',
			(int) 5 => 'second',
			(int) 6 => 'second',
			(int) 7 => 'first',
			(int) 8 => 'second',
			(int) 9 => 'first',
			(int) 10 => 'first',
			(int) 11 => 'second',
			(int) 12 => 'first',
			(int) 13 => 'first',
			(int) 14 => 'second',
			(int) 15 => 'first',
			(int) 16 => '3rd',
			(int) 17 => '4th'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Full Bench of',
			(int) 1 => 'The Full Bench',
			(int) 2 => 'The Full Bench',
			(int) 3 => 'Dombivli',
			(int) 4 => 'the Full Bench',
			(int) 5 => 'the Full Bench of',
			(int) 6 => 'the Full Bench of'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Tahsildar',
			(int) 1 => 'Subhash Chandra'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his',
			(int) 1 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
			(int) 2 => 'Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe',
			(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '715'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '367230',
			'acts' => 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Sections 4(1), 7 and 13; State Reorganization Act, 1956; Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 - Rule 4(9); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226, 341 and 342',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 4319 of 2008',
			'appellant' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. We are not happy about that delay. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.K. Mendadkar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, ;H. Hrishikesh Amembal, Adv., i/b., Srivastav &amp; Co. for R-2 and ;V.A. Gangal, Amicus Curiae',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2009-10-16',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ranjana Desai and ;A.A. Sayed, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranjana Desai, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste by birth which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3/1/08 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) with further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued in her favour is valid, legal and subsisting. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents 3 and 4 to handover B Tech degree to her and to release her mark sheets to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was born on 19/3/1986 at Mulund, Mumbai. She was admitted to the Omkar English Medium School, Dombivli, Thane, from where she passed her 10th Standard Examination. She was admitted to Smt. Shardaben Nanavati Science College, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. She passed S.Y.J.C. Examination in the month of June, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As the petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste she applied for a caste certificate to the Deputy Collector, Thane. On 16/2/2001 the Deputy Collector, Thane issued certificate to her. The certificate stated that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste but the certificate was in migrant form. It contained following noting: 'The holder of the certificate is not entitled to any concessions, facilities of any nature extending to Backward Class by the Government of Maharashtra'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to the petitioner this note was unwarranted and was not correct. The petitioner's father, therefore, represented her case before the Deputy Collector, Thane who issued another certificate on 5/8/2004 without the above mentioned note. That certificate states as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel and her family ordinarily resides in Village Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan of Thane district of the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus this new certificate apart from stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar scheduled caste, gave her the benefit of facilities extended to members of scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. Whereas certificate dated 16/2/01 imposed area restriction, certificate dated 5/8/04 removed the area restriction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner then moved the Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate dated 5/8/04. It may be stated here that on the basis of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 the petitioner was granted admission in the first year of B Tech degree course during the academic year 2004-05 in the 3rd respondent college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the validity of her caste certificate, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7675 of 2005 seeking direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide her caste claim expeditiously and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent college not to terminate her admission. On 9/1/06 this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within a period of eight weeks from 9/1/06. In the meantime the petitioner was allowed to prosecute her studies. Despite this order, the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the petitioner's case. The petitioner, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 299 of 2007 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 27/11/07. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within six weeks from 27/11/07 and the petitioner was allowed to appear for 7th Semester of final year of B Tech degree course examination subject to the result of her caste claim. Though she was allowed to prosecute the studies, the results were not declared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. The petitioner's prayer was for directions to respondents 3 and 4 to release her mark sheets and allow her to appear for final B Tech degree examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On 29/1/09 when this petition was being heard for admission in this Court, learned AGP informed the court that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 3/1/08 has invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had not received the copy of the order. This Court directed the respondents to make copy of order dated 3/1/08 available to the petitioner, which was accordingly made available. Thereafter the petition came to be amended. The petitioner deleted her earlier prayers and prayed that order dated 3/1/08 be set aside. The petitioner prayed that her certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane be validated and respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over B Tech. Degree to her. Having noticed that the Deputy Collector of Thane had issued two contrary caste certificates to the petitioner, on 20/4/09 this Court directed him to remain present in the court with record and proceedings. On 22/7/09 this Court again passed a detailed order and directed the Deputy Collector, Thane to bring record of both the certificates to our court. The Deputy Collector, who issued certificate dated 5/8/04 was directed to remain present in our court. The present Deputy Collector was also directed to remain present in our court. Accordingly both the Deputy Collectors remained present. We are, however, informed that record of certificate dated 16/2/01 is not traceable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that the petitioner is giving up her challenge to the Scrutiny Committee's order impugned in this petition. He submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner in fact belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste, that as of today she has completed her B. Tech degree course and that delay in deciding her caste claim is entirely due to the Scrutiny Committee's inaction, respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over degree certificate of B Tech course completed by the petitioner in May 2008 to her. He submitted that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to release the petitioner's mark sheets. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit stating that she is migrant and hence not entitled to any reservation benefits in the State of Maharashtra and that the petitioner will not claim any benefits either in the employment or in post graduate studies or in any other field in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. We appointed Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist us. Mr. Gangal has very ably assisted us. He produced relevant G.Rs. He submitted that Scrutiny Committee's order is unassailable. The petitioner cannot secure two contrary caste certificates from the Competent Authority. He submitted that first certificate is in migrant form and the second certificate is not in migrant form. The petitioner has obtained the second certificate without disclosing the fact that she has obtained the certificate in migrant form from the same Competent Authority. The petitioner ought to have surrendered or got cancelled the first certificate. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. He submitted that as per the relevant G.Rs. the Scrutiny Committees of the State of Maharashtra cannot decide the validity of the caste certificate. She will have to get it validated from Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Gangal submitted that as of today there is no adjudication of the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner has wrongly obtained admission on the basis that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste because she is not entitled to any facilities on that basis in Maharashtra. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the return of her degree certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. At the outset we must note our displeasure about the manner in which the office of the Deputy Collector, Thane has functioned in this matter. In Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2009 (3) Bom. C.R. 497, the Full Bench of this Court was inter alia considering the applicability of the affinity test in proceedings involving caste validation. The Full Bench considered the entire law on the point. The Full Bench referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short). The Full Bench also considered the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 ('the said rules' for short). The Full Bench noted the duties of Competent Authorities who issue caste certificates, the validity of which is decided by the Scrutiny Committees. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. For that purpose the Competent Authority has to consider the evidence produced by the applicant or any other person on his behalf and the statement of the applicant and the material gathered by the Competent Authority. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority exercises quasi judicial powers in arriving at a determination with reference to a claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It has to decide whether the burden to establish his caste has been discharged by the applicant or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Full Bench referred to Section 13 of the said Act which provides for penalty of issuing false certificate. It reads thus;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. '13. Penalty for issuing false Caste Certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Any person or authority performing the functions of Competent Authority under this Act, who intentionally issues a false Caste Certificate, shall on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees or both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except with previous sanction of the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus a person who acts as the Competent Authority can be convicted for issuing false caste certificate. Competent Authorities have to be careful while issuing caste certificates. A very onerous duty is caste on their shoulders. The Competent Authorities cannot issue caste certificate being oblivious of their responsibility. Statement of the applicant and his relatives, material collected and produced before it has to be considered and weighed by the Competent Authorities. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the Deputy Collector, Thane who is the Competent Authority, issued first certificate in migrant form and the same Competent Authority issued another certificate indicating that the petitioner's family is ordinarily residing in Maharashtra. We are not concerned with the person who acts as the Competent Authority. It is possible that the person who issued the earlier certificate has been transferred or has retired. That two different persons have issued two certificates cannot be an answer to this unpardonable conduct. Prima facie it smacks of unholy connivance between the concerned parties. The incumbent of the post of Deputy Collector must see what orders were passed by his predecessor and verify from record whether any caste certificate was issued to the applicant earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. We have seen certificate dated 5/8/04 which has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. This certificate states that it was issued on the basis of Scheduled Caste certificate of the father of the petitioner. On certificate dated 5/8/04 following endorsement is made.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Mr. Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel. Father of Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel of Village - 13271 Shastri Nagar in District - Kanpur, of the State/Union Territory, UP who belong to the Chamar which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State/Union Territory U.P. Issued by the Tahasildar Kanpur Nagar. (Name as prescribed authority) vide their No. 4057, dated 11/10/2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus certificate of the father of the petitioner was before the Deputy Collector, Thane. He should have been, therefore, careful while issuing the certificate to the petitioner to the effect that she ordinarily resides in Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane, when the certificate of the petitioner's father mentioned his address as Shastri Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. It is not disputed before us that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes specified in relation to any other State shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10/8/1950 on which date the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. From 10/8/1950 Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes. There was no material before the Competent Authority to establish that father or grandfather of the petitioner was resident of the State of Maharashtra prior to 10/8/50. Hence issuance of certificate dated 5/8/04 in non-migrant form to the petitioner is beyond comprehension.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since we are told that the record of this certificate is lost, we are not in a position to find out whether in the application made by the petitioner for validity of certificate dated 5/8/04, she had disclosed that earlier certificate dated 16/2/01 was issued in migrant form. We, therefore, asked Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the application preferred by the petitioner's father on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to which certificate dated 5/8/04 was issued. Mr. Mendadkar informed us that he does not have copy of the said application. This reply is also not satisfactory. It is indeed a strange coincidence that the relevant record of the Scrutiny Committee should be lost and at the same time application preferred by the petitioner should also be not available with the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible for us to find out whether the petitioner had disclosed to the Deputy Collector, Thane that she was earlier issued certificate by his office in migrant form. All this smacks of sharp practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Scrutiny Committee has taken extraordinarily long time to pass order. We are not happy about that delay. Had the Scrutiny Committee passed the order expeditiously she could have been stopped from pursuing her studies in Mumbai. Because of the delay caused by the lethargy of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner took benefit of the seat which would have been available to a scheduled caste candidate from Maharashtra. In our opinion, in this case an indepth inquiry needs to be conducted as to how the same Competent Authority issued two contrary certificates, how the record is lost and why the Scrutiny Committee took extraordinarily long time to pass order. We must note here that in several cases, we are informed that records are lost. It is time Secretary of the concerned department of the Government looks into this matter and institutes an inquiry by a person of his confidence because our experience tells us that in many cases issuance of caste certificates by Competent Authority has become a farce. In this the persons who deserve to get benefit of reservation policy are the loosers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. It is now necessary to go to the impugned order. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the Deputy Collector, Thane has issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. The said certificate is in migrant form in which address of the petitioner's father is shown as 'Shastrinagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh'. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes with effect from 10/8/1950 and, therefore, residence of father or grandfather of the petitioner in Maharashtra prior to that date becomes necessary. The Scrutiny Committee has then considered the material in this connection. It appears that in his statement recorded before the Scrutiny Committee on 28/6/04 by the Vigilance Cell father of the petitioner has stated that he is the resident of Kanpur, U.P. and that he was born and educated in U.P. He has further stated that he came to Mumbai for employment. Therefore, the petitioner's residence in Maharashtra is not proved. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that the petitioner submitted one more certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by Deputy Collector, Thane certifying that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. Morever all along her father's address is shown as Kanpur, U.P. and, therefore, in any case the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits in the State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the first certificate dated 16/2/2001 is in migrant form. That has not been cancelled. Till that certificate is cancelled the petitioner cannot get the second caste certificate. Such a course is illegal. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. However, benefits/concessions admissible to their caste will be available to them in their original State only and such certificates should not be verified by the Scrutiny Committee of this State. After so observing the Scrutiny Committee has cancelled and confiscated the caste certificate dated 5/8/04 obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy Collector, Thane, and has returned the first caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 obtained by the petitioner in migrant form from the same Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector, Thane, as per Government Circular dated 21/8/1996. The Scrutiny Committee has clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits in Maharashtra (vide Government Circular dated 24/8/1995).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. We cannot find any fault with the Scrutiny Committee's order. We are entirely in agreement with the Scrutiny Committee's view. The petitioner has applied for certificates twice. She has got one certificate in migrant form certifying that she is a Chamar. She again applied for another certificate without cancelling or surrendering the first certificate. And surprisingly the same Competent Authority issued her a certificate which is not in migrant form so that she can now get all the benefits in Maharashtra. Such a course is illegal and hence not permissible. Under Section 7 of the said Act such a certificate can be confiscated and cancelled. This is prima facie a case of grave misconduct on the part of the Competent Authority for which it may be liable for penalty under Section 13 of the said Act, which we have quoted hereinabove. If the enquiry which we hope the Secretary of the concerned department will conduct as desired by us discloses that the file is lost because of unholy connivance of some persons with the office of the Competent Authority, law must take its course. It is also necessary to find out why the Scrutiny Committee took such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The upshot of the above discussion is that as of today there is no validation of caste claim of the petitioner. No Scrutiny Committee has validated her caste claim. The second certificate having been confiscated and cancelled the petitioner will have to get her first certificate dated 16/2/2001 which is in migrant form validated. As per G.R. dated 21/8/96 she cannot get it validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra and even if she gets it validated she cannot get any benefits available to that caste in Maharashtra. The legal position in that behalf is settled by the Supreme Court. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Ors. : (1990) 3 SCC 130 the petitioner was born in Andhra Pradesh. He claimed to belong to 'Gaudi' Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner had obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate from the Tahsildar and on that basis he got an employment in S T quota in Government of India undertaking in Bombay, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner came to live in Bombay since the age of nine years. The petitioner in due course submitted application for admission to G. S. Medical College, Bombay seeking benefit of reservation in favour of S.Ts. But he was denied the admission on the basis of a circular issued by the Government of India that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. The Constitution Bench was considering whether the person who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of migration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. After considering Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench held that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe in his original State. The Constitution Bench observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to in order to become equals with others but those who go to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In Action Committee v. Union of India and Anr. : (1994) 5 SCC 244, the Supreme Court was considering whether where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B. The Supreme Court followed Marri Chandra's case and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that, if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State 'for the purposes of this Constitution'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Mr. Mendadkar has drawn our attention to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hitesh Murkute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (5) MLJ 454. In our opinion that judgment has no application to the present case. In that case this Court was considering whether a migrant who belonged to a community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any locality which has been divided upon reorganization of States and his caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in such newly formed State is entitled to benefit of reservation in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. This Court held relying on judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (4) MLJ 784 held that such a migrant would be entitled to benefit of reservation even in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. Such are not the facts here. In this case, the petitioner's father belongs to Kanpur, U.P. which was not part of Bombay State prior to State Reorganization Act, 1956 or 1960. This judgment has no application to the present case. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra and Action Committee has been reiterated by it in Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 278. In view of the settled legal position no amount of undertakings or assurances can persuade us to give a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to handover degree certificate to the petitioner as of today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Mendadkar to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2008) 5 SCC 652, wherein caste certificate of the appellant was invalidated because he had produced false certificate. The Supreme Court observed that admission was taken by the appellant 13 years back and degree was awarded to him four years back. The Supreme Court observed that seat given to the appellant could not at that juncture be re-allotted to any other candidate. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has already appeared for B Tech examination and the Scrutiny Committee has delayed in passing order on her application for deciding the validity of the caste, the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Naikwadi's case may be followed in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. We must also refer to Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2008 (1) M.L.J. 715, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner therein was invalidated. The petitioner was granted admission to M.B.B.S. Degree course on scheduled caste reserved seat. The petitioner prayed that since she had completed M.B.B.S. Examination her admission be protected. The Division Bench considered the entire law on the point and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench observed that it is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the said Act wherein stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. Constitutional scheme of reservation has to be protected. Several judgments of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Full Bench which have taken a view that the persons who commit fraud are not entitled to protection of benefits of reservation policy fraudulently taken by them. In any case these submissions cannot be considered by us till the caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the circumstances, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned order dated 3/1/08 is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner's prayer that a direction be given that her degree certificates be returned to her on her filing undertaking is rejected because her caste certificate dated 5/4/04 is cancelled and her caste certificate dated 16/2/01 which is in migrant form has not been validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. Besides the petitioner has wrongly taken admission to the college in Maharashtra on the basis that she is entitled to the benefits of Chamar Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We direct that this judgment along with all the necessary files and a copy of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case (supra) be placed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra who can start an indepth inquiry through a high ranking independent officer of his confidence to find out;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) When the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector Thane had issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 in migrant form to the petitioner that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste making it clear that she is not entitled to any benefits available to that Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra; how can the same Competent Authority issue another certificate dated 5/8/2004, stating to the contrary i.e. stating that the petitioner ordinarily resides in village Dombivali, Taluka Kalyan, Maharashtra, ignoring the caste certificate of the petitioner's father which was before him, that the petitioner's father is a resident of U.P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) Whether the statement made before us that relevant file pertaining to certificate dated 16/2/01 issued in migrant form is lost is correct.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">c) If the file is lost, who is responsible for it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">d) Why did the Scrutiny Committee take such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">e) If the inquiry reveals that the Competent Authority has issued false caste certificate, we expect the Secretary to initiate action under the relevant provisions of the said Act against the Competent Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The inquiry be conducted independently. Any observation made by us as regards the conduct of the Competent Authority, its staff or the petitioner and her father be treated as prima facie observations. It will be open to the petitioner to get her caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 validated from appropriate Scrutiny Committee. In case the petitioner's caste certificate dated 162/2001 is validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee it will be open to her to apply for her degree certificate and at that stage her prayer will be considered in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Needless to say that, if involvement of any staff is disclosed, necessary action must be taken against the staff. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiring officer</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While deciding as to who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs the officer appointed by the Secretary shall take assistance from the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case, particularly conclusions drawn therein. The inquiry be completed within a period of three months from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Action taken report' be submitted to this Court after three months. Office to place this matter on board before the regular bench for directions for the purpose of taking the 'Action taken report' on record after three months i.e. on 18/1/2010.The Registrar General, High Court is directed to immediately forward copy of this judgment to the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2010(1)BomCR352; 2010(1)MhLj470',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, ;caste Certificate Scrutiny C',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '367230'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 4(1',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 13',
		(int) 3 => 'the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 7',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 13',
		(int) 6 => 'The Constitution Bench',
		(int) 7 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 8 => 'the Constitution Bench',
		(int) 9 => 'The Constitution Bench',
		(int) 10 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 11 => 'State Reorganization Act'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Ranjana Desai',
		(int) 1 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 2 => 'Kavita',
		(int) 3 => 'Chandraprakash Goel',
		(int) 4 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
		(int) 5 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 6 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 7 => 'B. Tech',
		(int) 8 => 'Tech',
		(int) 9 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 10 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 11 => 'Gangal',
		(int) 12 => 'Vishnu Thakur',
		(int) 13 => 'Tribes',
		(int) 14 => 'Vimukta Jatis',
		(int) 15 => 'Nomadic Tribes',
		(int) 16 => 'Backward Classes',
		(int) 17 => 'thus;13',
		(int) 18 => 'Caste Certificate.(1',
		(int) 19 => 'Caste Certificate',
		(int) 20 => 'Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel',
		(int) 21 => 'Kavita',
		(int) 22 => 'Shastri Nagar',
		(int) 23 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 24 => 'Kanpur Nagar',
		(int) 25 => 'Taluka Kalyan',
		(int) 26 => 'Shastri Nagar',
		(int) 27 => 'comprehension.15',
		(int) 28 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 29 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 30 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 31 => 'practice.16',
		(int) 32 => 'Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean',
		(int) 33 => 'Seth G. S. Medical College',
		(int) 34 => 'Articles 341',
		(int) 35 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 36 => 'Anr',
		(int) 37 => 'Marri Chandra's',
		(int) 38 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 39 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 40 => 'Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 41 => 'Sudhakar Vithal v. State',
		(int) 42 => 'Anr',
		(int) 43 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 44 => 'Mendadkar',
		(int) 45 => 'M.B.B.S. Degree',
		(int) 46 => 'Caste Scrutiny',
		(int) 47 => 'Taluka Kalyan'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 3 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 4 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 5 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 6 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 7 => 'Maharashtra'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 1 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 2 => 'Thane',
		(int) 3 => 'Mulund',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'Thane',
		(int) 6 => 'Ghatkopar',
		(int) 7 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 8 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 9 => 'Thane',
		(int) 10 => 'Thane',
		(int) 11 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 12 => 'Thane',
		(int) 13 => 'Village Dombivli',
		(int) 14 => 'Thane',
		(int) 15 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 16 => 'Thane',
		(int) 17 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 18 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 19 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 20 => 'Thane',
		(int) 21 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 22 => 'C.R.',
		(int) 23 => 'Thane',
		(int) 24 => 'District - Kanpur',
		(int) 25 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 26 => 'Thane',
		(int) 27 => 'District Thane',
		(int) 28 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 29 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 30 => 'Thane',
		(int) 31 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 32 => 'Thane',
		(int) 33 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 34 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 35 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 36 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 37 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 38 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 39 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 40 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 41 => 'Thane',
		(int) 42 => 'Thane',
		(int) 43 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 44 => 'G.R.',
		(int) 45 => 'Andhra',
		(int) 46 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 47 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 48 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 49 => 'S.Ts',
		(int) 50 => 'States',
		(int) 51 => 'States',
		(int) 52 => 'Kanpur',
		(int) 53 => 'Marri Chandra and',
		(int) 54 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 55 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 56 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 57 => 'Chamar',
		(int) 58 => 'Shilpa',
		(int) 59 => 'Mantralaya',
		(int) 60 => 'Mumbai'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 1 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 2 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 3 => '3',
		(int) 4 => '4',
		(int) 5 => '2004.4',
		(int) 6 => '5/8/2004',
		(int) 7 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 8 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 9 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 10 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 11 => '9/1/06',
		(int) 12 => '9/1/06',
		(int) 13 => '299',
		(int) 14 => '27/11/07',
		(int) 15 => '27/11/07',
		(int) 16 => '7/1/08',
		(int) 17 => '31/5/08',
		(int) 18 => '3',
		(int) 19 => '4',
		(int) 20 => '29/1/09',
		(int) 21 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 22 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 23 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 24 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 25 => '3',
		(int) 26 => '4',
		(int) 27 => 'two',
		(int) 28 => '20/4/09',
		(int) 29 => '22/7/09',
		(int) 30 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 31 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 32 => '3',
		(int) 33 => '4',
		(int) 34 => '3',
		(int) 35 => '4',
		(int) 36 => 'two',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '9',
		(int) 39 => '4',
		(int) 40 => '13',
		(int) 41 => 'less than',
		(int) 42 => 'two',
		(int) 43 => 'two',
		(int) 44 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 45 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 46 => '11/10/2000Thus',
		(int) 47 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 48 => '10/8/50',
		(int) 49 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 50 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 51 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 52 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => '28/6/04',
		(int) 55 => 'one',
		(int) 56 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 57 => '5/8/04',
		(int) 58 => '24/8/1995).18',
		(int) 59 => 'one',
		(int) 60 => '3',
		(int) 61 => '130',
		(int) 62 => '342',
		(int) 63 => '5',
		(int) 64 => 'two',
		(int) 65 => '5',
		(int) 66 => '454',
		(int) 67 => '4',
		(int) 68 => '2',
		(int) 69 => '278',
		(int) 70 => '5',
		(int) 71 => '652',
		(int) 72 => '1',
		(int) 73 => '3/1/08',
		(int) 74 => '5/4/04',
		(int) 75 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 76 => '5/8/2004',
		(int) 77 => '16/2/01',
		(int) 78 => '18/1/2010.The'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai Division',
		(int) 2 => 'Scrutiny Committee'',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 4 => 'Standard Examination',
		(int) 5 => 'Smt',
		(int) 6 => 'Nanavati Science College',
		(int) 7 => 'the Government of Maharashtra'.5',
		(int) 8 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 9 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 10 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 11 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 12 => 'Court',
		(int) 13 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 14 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 15 => 'Contempt Petition No',
		(int) 16 => 'Court',
		(int) 17 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 18 => '7th Semester of final year',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 21 => 'Court',
		(int) 22 => 'B Tech',
		(int) 23 => 'Court',
		(int) 24 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 25 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 26 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 27 => 'the State of Maharashtra.11',
		(int) 28 => 'Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 29 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 30 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 31 => 'Scrutiny',
		(int) 32 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
		(int) 33 => 'Uttar Pradesh',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 36 => 'Regulation of Issuance and Verification',
		(int) 37 => 'Competent Authorities',
		(int) 38 => 'the Scrutiny Committees',
		(int) 39 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 40 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 41 => 'The Competent Authority',
		(int) 42 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 43 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 44 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 45 => 'The Competent Authority',
		(int) 46 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 47 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 48 => 'Competent Authorities',
		(int) 49 => 'The Competent Authorities',
		(int) 50 => 'the Competent Authorities',
		(int) 51 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 52 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 53 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 54 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 55 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 56 => 'Scheduled Caste',
		(int) 57 => 'the State/Union Territory',
		(int) 58 => 'the State/Union',
		(int) 59 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 60 => 'State',
		(int) 61 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 62 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 63 => 'Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 64 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 65 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 66 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 67 => 'the Deputy Collector',
		(int) 68 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 69 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 70 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 71 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 72 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 73 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 74 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 75 => 'Uttar Pradesh'',
		(int) 76 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 77 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 78 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 79 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 80 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 81 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 82 => 'the State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 83 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 84 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 85 => 'the Government Circular',
		(int) 86 => 'State',
		(int) 87 => 'State',
		(int) 88 => 'State',
		(int) 89 => 'the Scrutiny Committee of this State',
		(int) 90 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 91 => 'Government Circular',
		(int) 92 => 'The Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 93 => 'Maharashtra (vide Government Circular',
		(int) 94 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 95 => 'the Scrutiny Committee's',
		(int) 96 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 97 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 98 => 'the concerned department',
		(int) 99 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 100 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 101 => 'No Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 102 => 'the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra',
		(int) 103 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 104 => 'Scheduled Tribe Certificate',
		(int) 105 => 'Government of India',
		(int) 106 => 'G. S. Medical College',
		(int) 107 => 'the Government of India',
		(int) 108 => 'State',
		(int) 109 => 'State',
		(int) 110 => 'State',
		(int) 111 => 'State',
		(int) 112 => 'the State of migration.20',
		(int) 113 => 'State',
		(int) 114 => 'Action Committee v. Union of India',
		(int) 115 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 116 => 'State',
		(int) 117 => 'State',
		(int) 118 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 119 => 'Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes',
		(int) 120 => 'State',
		(int) 121 => 'State',
		(int) 122 => 'State',
		(int) 123 => 'State A',
		(int) 124 => 'State',
		(int) 125 => 'State',
		(int) 126 => 'Hitesh Murkute',
		(int) 127 => 'Court',
		(int) 128 => 'State',
		(int) 129 => 'State',
		(int) 130 => 'Court',
		(int) 131 => 'MLJ',
		(int) 132 => 'State',
		(int) 133 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 134 => 'Bombay State',
		(int) 135 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 136 => 'Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board',
		(int) 137 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 138 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 139 => 'The Supreme Court',
		(int) 140 => 'Tribe',
		(int) 141 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 142 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 143 => 'Yogesh Naikwadi's',
		(int) 144 => 'Priyanka Omprakash Panwar',
		(int) 145 => 'M.B.B.S. Examination',
		(int) 146 => 'Court',
		(int) 147 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 148 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 149 => 'Court',
		(int) 150 => 'the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra',
		(int) 151 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 152 => 'Competent Authority',
		(int) 153 => 'Dombivali',
		(int) 154 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 155 => 'the Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 156 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 157 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 158 => 'the Competent Authority',
		(int) 159 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 160 => 'Scrutiny Committee',
		(int) 161 => 'Court',
		(int) 162 => 'Court',
		(int) 163 => 'Registrar General',
		(int) 164 => 'the Secretary Social Welfare Department'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '19/3/1986',
		(int) 1 => 'the month of June',
		(int) 2 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 3 => 'the first year',
		(int) 4 => 'the academic year 2004-05',
		(int) 5 => '2005',
		(int) 6 => 'a period of',
		(int) 7 => 'eight weeks',
		(int) 8 => 'six weeks',
		(int) 9 => 'March, 2008',
		(int) 10 => 'the month of May, 2008',
		(int) 11 => 'today',
		(int) 12 => 'May 2008',
		(int) 13 => 'today',
		(int) 14 => '2009',
		(int) 15 => '2000',
		(int) 16 => '2003',
		(int) 17 => 'less than six months',
		(int) 18 => 'two years',
		(int) 19 => '13271',
		(int) 20 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 21 => '1950',
		(int) 22 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 23 => '10/8/1950',
		(int) 24 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 25 => '24/8/1995',
		(int) 26 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 27 => '21/8/1996',
		(int) 28 => 'today',
		(int) 29 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 30 => '1990',
		(int) 31 => 'the age of nine years',
		(int) 32 => '1994',
		(int) 33 => '2007',
		(int) 34 => '2004',
		(int) 35 => '1956',
		(int) 36 => '1960',
		(int) 37 => '2009',
		(int) 38 => '2008',
		(int) 39 => '13 years',
		(int) 40 => 'four years back',
		(int) 41 => '2008',
		(int) 42 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 43 => '16/2/2001',
		(int) 44 => '162/2001',
		(int) 45 => 'a period of',
		(int) 46 => 'three months',
		(int) 47 => 'today',
		(int) 48 => 'three months',
		(int) 49 => 'three months'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10th',
		(int) 1 => '3rd',
		(int) 2 => '3rd',
		(int) 3 => '4th',
		(int) 4 => 'first',
		(int) 5 => 'second',
		(int) 6 => 'second',
		(int) 7 => 'first',
		(int) 8 => 'second',
		(int) 9 => 'first',
		(int) 10 => 'first',
		(int) 11 => 'second',
		(int) 12 => 'first',
		(int) 13 => 'first',
		(int) 14 => 'second',
		(int) 15 => 'first',
		(int) 16 => '3rd',
		(int) 17 => '4th'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Full Bench of',
		(int) 1 => 'The Full Bench',
		(int) 2 => 'The Full Bench',
		(int) 3 => 'Dombivli',
		(int) 4 => 'the Full Bench',
		(int) 5 => 'the Full Bench of',
		(int) 6 => 'the Full Bench of'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 1 => 'Maharashtra'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Tahsildar',
		(int) 1 => 'Subhash Chandra'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his',
		(int) 1 => 'the Scheduled Castes',
		(int) 2 => 'Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe',
		(int) 3 => 'the Scheduled Castes'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '715'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '367230',
		'acts' => 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Sections 4(1), 7 and 13; State Reorganization Act, 1956; Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 - Rule 4(9); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226, 341 and 342',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 4319 of 2008',
		'appellant' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kavita Chandraprakash Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 34: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Act  Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii)  Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Article 1. Thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. But from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, Article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue Court challenging any award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940.Thus, the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule 1 do not apply when an application is filed or appeal is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thus the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule I do not apply when an application is filed challenging an award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether reference to the provisions of 1940 Act found in Article 3 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act can be said to include reference to the 1996 Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of General Clauses Act shows that where by a Central enactment any provision of a former enactment is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification then reference in any other enactment to the provisions so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.  In the present case, it is common ground that the former enactment is the 1940 Act, the new enactment is the 1996 Act and any other enactment is the Bombay Court fees Act, the only provision of the 1940 Act referred to in Article 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act is the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940Act and  bare comparison of that provision with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act shows that the provision of Section 33 of 1940 Act is repealed and re-enacted in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act with slight modification. Therefore, reference to the provisions of Section 33 of the 1940 Act in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act has to be construed, in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, as reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. So far as an appeal filed under Section 37 of the 1996 Act is concerned, perusal of Section 37 shows that an appeal is provided to the appellate Court against an order setting aside an arbitral award or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34. Thus, as the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I do not apply to an application or petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, they will also not apply to the memorandum of appeal filed to set aside or modify an award made by the Arbitrator under the 1996 Act. In other words nothing contained in Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act applies to an application, petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify any Award made under the 1996 Act as it does not apply to an application or petition or memorandum of appeal to set aside or modify an Award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Perusal of the provisions of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act shows that references in any other enactment to a provision in a former enactment is to be construed as reference to re-enacted provision in the new enactment unless a different intention appears. The different intention may appear either in the new enactment or in the other enactment. Nothing was pointed out either in the 1996 Act or in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be construed as a different intention or which will show that it was not the intention of the Maharashtra legislature to exclude an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in Court to set aside or modify an award made under the 1996 Act, from the provisions of Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act. It appears that the intention behind excluding an application made, challenging the Award made under the 1940 Act, from requirement of payment of ad valorem Court fee which is required to be paid if the same litigant filed a suit on the same subject matter, was to encourage a litigant to go for arbitration instead of filing a suit. Nothing has been pointed out to show that ther4e is any change in that legislative policy. On the contrary, from the preamble of the 1996 Act it is clear that the policy of the legislature is to encourage people to adopt the mode of arbitration for resolving disputes. Article 3 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court Fees Act does not apply to a petition,  application or memorandum of appeal filed for challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, and Court fee on a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging an Award in High Court is payable according to Article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. 

Section 37: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Schedule I, Article 3 & Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii): [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, When a Petition under Section 34 is to be filed before a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not a High Court, the question arises which Article of either First Schedule or Second Schedule would apply. In so far as the challenge to an Award made under the 1940 Act is concerned, an application under Section 33 of that Act could be made to a Civil Court and therefore, payment of Court fee was governed by Article 1(a) of Schedule II. This was so because the application was to be presented to the Court of Civil Judge which was not a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. But now because of change of definition of term Court in the 1996 Act, a petition has to be presented, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act in terms of the provisions of Section 34 thereof, before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. No entry either in the first Schedule or in the Second Schedule was pointed out which applies to an application or petition to be made before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and therefore, when a litigant wants to file petition before a Principal Civil Court having original jurisdiction which is not High Court, challenging an Award made under the 1996 Act, no court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act is payable because of absence of a general or specific provision. Therefore, it can be said that no Court  fee under the Bombay Court Fees Act is payable when a petition under Section 34 challenging an Award is filed before any Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which is not High Court. 

Schedule II, Article 13: [D.K. Deshmukh, S.J. Vazifdar & J.P. Devadhar, JJ] Court fee on Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Held, Court fee is payable according to Article 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court Fees Act. -  8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. We are not happy about that delay. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.K. Mendadkar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, ;H. Hrishikesh Amembal, Adv., i/b., Srivastav &amp; Co. for R-2 and ;V.A. Gangal, Amicus Curiae',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2009-10-16',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ranjana Desai and ;A.A. Sayed, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Ranjana Desai, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste by birth which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 3/1/08 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) with further direction to the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that caste certificate dated 5/8/04 issued in her favour is valid, legal and subsisting. The petitioner has also sought directions to respondents 3 and 4 to handover B Tech degree to her and to release her mark sheets to her.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner was born on 19/3/1986 at Mulund, Mumbai. She was admitted to the Omkar English Medium School, Dombivli, Thane, from where she passed her 10th Standard Examination. She was admitted to Smt. Shardaben Nanavati Science College, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. She passed S.Y.J.C. Examination in the month of June, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As the petitioner claims to belong to Chamar caste she applied for a caste certificate to the Deputy Collector, Thane. On 16/2/2001 the Deputy Collector, Thane issued certificate to her. The certificate stated that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste but the certificate was in migrant form. It contained following noting: 'The holder of the certificate is not entitled to any concessions, facilities of any nature extending to Backward Class by the Government of Maharashtra'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. According to the petitioner this note was unwarranted and was not correct. The petitioner's father, therefore, represented her case before the Deputy Collector, Thane who issued another certificate on 5/8/2004 without the above mentioned note. That certificate states as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel and her family ordinarily resides in Village Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan of Thane district of the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus this new certificate apart from stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar scheduled caste, gave her the benefit of facilities extended to members of scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. Whereas certificate dated 16/2/01 imposed area restriction, certificate dated 5/8/04 removed the area restriction.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner then moved the Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate dated 5/8/04. It may be stated here that on the basis of caste certificate dated 5/8/04 the petitioner was granted admission in the first year of B Tech degree course during the academic year 2004-05 in the 3rd respondent college.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the validity of her caste certificate, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7675 of 2005 seeking direction to the Scrutiny Committee to decide her caste claim expeditiously and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent college not to terminate her admission. On 9/1/06 this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within a period of eight weeks from 9/1/06. In the meantime the petitioner was allowed to prosecute her studies. Despite this order, the Scrutiny Committee did not decide the petitioner's case. The petitioner, therefore, filed Contempt Petition No. 299 of 2007 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 27/11/07. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim within six weeks from 27/11/07 and the petitioner was allowed to appear for 7th Semester of final year of B Tech degree course examination subject to the result of her caste claim. Though she was allowed to prosecute the studies, the results were not declared.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition in March, 2008. In the petition it was averred that the petitioner will be completing her 4th year in the month of May, 2008; that the petitioner has been recommended for a training course from 7/1/08 to 31/5/08 and that the petitioner's results of earlier examinations need to be disclosed for that purpose. The petitioner's prayer was for directions to respondents 3 and 4 to release her mark sheets and allow her to appear for final B Tech degree examination.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On 29/1/09 when this petition was being heard for admission in this Court, learned AGP informed the court that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 3/1/08 has invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had not received the copy of the order. This Court directed the respondents to make copy of order dated 3/1/08 available to the petitioner, which was accordingly made available. Thereafter the petition came to be amended. The petitioner deleted her earlier prayers and prayed that order dated 3/1/08 be set aside. The petitioner prayed that her certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by the Deputy Collector, Thane be validated and respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over B Tech. Degree to her. Having noticed that the Deputy Collector of Thane had issued two contrary caste certificates to the petitioner, on 20/4/09 this Court directed him to remain present in the court with record and proceedings. On 22/7/09 this Court again passed a detailed order and directed the Deputy Collector, Thane to bring record of both the certificates to our court. The Deputy Collector, who issued certificate dated 5/8/04 was directed to remain present in our court. The present Deputy Collector was also directed to remain present in our court. Accordingly both the Deputy Collectors remained present. We are, however, informed that record of certificate dated 16/2/01 is not traceable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that the petitioner is giving up her challenge to the Scrutiny Committee's order impugned in this petition. He submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner in fact belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste, that as of today she has completed her B. Tech degree course and that delay in deciding her caste claim is entirely due to the Scrutiny Committee's inaction, respondents 3 and 4 be directed to hand over degree certificate of B Tech course completed by the petitioner in May 2008 to her. He submitted that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to release the petitioner's mark sheets. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to file an affidavit stating that she is migrant and hence not entitled to any reservation benefits in the State of Maharashtra and that the petitioner will not claim any benefits either in the employment or in post graduate studies or in any other field in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. We appointed Mr. Gangal, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist us. Mr. Gangal has very ably assisted us. He produced relevant G.Rs. He submitted that Scrutiny Committee's order is unassailable. The petitioner cannot secure two contrary caste certificates from the Competent Authority. He submitted that first certificate is in migrant form and the second certificate is not in migrant form. The petitioner has obtained the second certificate without disclosing the fact that she has obtained the certificate in migrant form from the same Competent Authority. The petitioner ought to have surrendered or got cancelled the first certificate. He submitted that the Scrutiny committee's order confiscating and cancelling the second certificate of the petitioner is perfectly legal. He submitted that as per the relevant G.Rs. the Scrutiny Committees of the State of Maharashtra cannot decide the validity of the caste certificate. She will have to get it validated from Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Gangal submitted that as of today there is no adjudication of the petitioner's caste certificate. The petitioner has wrongly obtained admission on the basis that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste because she is not entitled to any facilities on that basis in Maharashtra. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the return of her degree certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. At the outset we must note our displeasure about the manner in which the office of the Deputy Collector, Thane has functioned in this matter. In Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2009 (3) Bom. C.R. 497, the Full Bench of this Court was inter alia considering the applicability of the affinity test in proceedings involving caste validation. The Full Bench considered the entire law on the point. The Full Bench referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short). The Full Bench also considered the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 ('the said rules' for short). The Full Bench noted the duties of Competent Authorities who issue caste certificates, the validity of which is decided by the Scrutiny Committees. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim under Section 4(1) of the said Act. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 4 of the said Rules, if the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced it is empowered to order such further enquiry as it deems fit. The Competent Authority has to issue certificate only if it is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. For that purpose the Competent Authority has to consider the evidence produced by the applicant or any other person on his behalf and the statement of the applicant and the material gathered by the Competent Authority. The Full Bench noted that the Competent Authority exercises quasi judicial powers in arriving at a determination with reference to a claim to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority has to apply well established norms in the evaluation of evidence. It has to decide whether the burden to establish his caste has been discharged by the applicant or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Full Bench referred to Section 13 of the said Act which provides for penalty of issuing false certificate. It reads thus;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. '13. Penalty for issuing false Caste Certificate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) Any person or authority performing the functions of Competent Authority under this Act, who intentionally issues a false Caste Certificate, shall on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees or both.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except with previous sanction of the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus a person who acts as the Competent Authority can be convicted for issuing false caste certificate. Competent Authorities have to be careful while issuing caste certificates. A very onerous duty is caste on their shoulders. The Competent Authorities cannot issue caste certificate being oblivious of their responsibility. Statement of the applicant and his relatives, material collected and produced before it has to be considered and weighed by the Competent Authorities. It is a quasi judicial authority and has to follow well established rules of evidence and procedure. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the Deputy Collector, Thane who is the Competent Authority, issued first certificate in migrant form and the same Competent Authority issued another certificate indicating that the petitioner's family is ordinarily residing in Maharashtra. We are not concerned with the person who acts as the Competent Authority. It is possible that the person who issued the earlier certificate has been transferred or has retired. That two different persons have issued two certificates cannot be an answer to this unpardonable conduct. Prima facie it smacks of unholy connivance between the concerned parties. The incumbent of the post of Deputy Collector must see what orders were passed by his predecessor and verify from record whether any caste certificate was issued to the applicant earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. We have seen certificate dated 5/8/04 which has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. This certificate states that it was issued on the basis of Scheduled Caste certificate of the father of the petitioner. On certificate dated 5/8/04 following endorsement is made.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Mr. Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel. Father of Ms. Kavita Chandraprakash Goel of Village - 13271 Shastri Nagar in District - Kanpur, of the State/Union Territory, UP who belong to the Chamar which is recognised as Scheduled Caste in the State/Union Territory U.P. Issued by the Tahasildar Kanpur Nagar. (Name as prescribed authority) vide their No. 4057, dated 11/10/2000</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Thus certificate of the father of the petitioner was before the Deputy Collector, Thane. He should have been, therefore, careful while issuing the certificate to the petitioner to the effect that she ordinarily resides in Dombivli, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane, when the certificate of the petitioner's father mentioned his address as Shastri Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. It is not disputed before us that persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes specified in relation to any other State shall not be entitled to the benefits and privileges accorded by the State of Maharashtra unless the person concerned is shown to be a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra on 10/8/1950 on which date the President first promulgated the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. From 10/8/1950 Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes. There was no material before the Competent Authority to establish that father or grandfather of the petitioner was resident of the State of Maharashtra prior to 10/8/50. Hence issuance of certificate dated 5/8/04 in non-migrant form to the petitioner is beyond comprehension.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Since we are told that the record of this certificate is lost, we are not in a position to find out whether in the application made by the petitioner for validity of certificate dated 5/8/04, she had disclosed that earlier certificate dated 16/2/01 was issued in migrant form. We, therefore, asked Mr. Mendadkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner to produce the application preferred by the petitioner's father on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to which certificate dated 5/8/04 was issued. Mr. Mendadkar informed us that he does not have copy of the said application. This reply is also not satisfactory. It is indeed a strange coincidence that the relevant record of the Scrutiny Committee should be lost and at the same time application preferred by the petitioner should also be not available with the petitioner. It is, therefore, not possible for us to find out whether the petitioner had disclosed to the Deputy Collector, Thane that she was earlier issued certificate by his office in migrant form. All this smacks of sharp practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The Scrutiny Committee has taken extraordinarily long time to pass order. We are not happy about that delay. Had the Scrutiny Committee passed the order expeditiously she could have been stopped from pursuing her studies in Mumbai. Because of the delay caused by the lethargy of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner took benefit of the seat which would have been available to a scheduled caste candidate from Maharashtra. In our opinion, in this case an indepth inquiry needs to be conducted as to how the same Competent Authority issued two contrary certificates, how the record is lost and why the Scrutiny Committee took extraordinarily long time to pass order. We must note here that in several cases, we are informed that records are lost. It is time Secretary of the concerned department of the Government looks into this matter and institutes an inquiry by a person of his confidence because our experience tells us that in many cases issuance of caste certificates by Competent Authority has become a farce. In this the persons who deserve to get benefit of reservation policy are the loosers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. It is now necessary to go to the impugned order. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the Deputy Collector, Thane has issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 stating that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. The said certificate is in migrant form in which address of the petitioner's father is shown as 'Shastrinagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh'. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that Chamar caste is included in the list of Scheduled Castes with effect from 10/8/1950 and, therefore, residence of father or grandfather of the petitioner in Maharashtra prior to that date becomes necessary. The Scrutiny Committee has then considered the material in this connection. It appears that in his statement recorded before the Scrutiny Committee on 28/6/04 by the Vigilance Cell father of the petitioner has stated that he is the resident of Kanpur, U.P. and that he was born and educated in U.P. He has further stated that he came to Mumbai for employment. Therefore, the petitioner's residence in Maharashtra is not proved. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that the petitioner submitted one more certificate dated 5/8/04 issued by Deputy Collector, Thane certifying that the petitioner belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste. Morever all along her father's address is shown as Kanpur, U.P. and, therefore, in any case the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits in the State of Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the first certificate dated 16/2/2001 is in migrant form. That has not been cancelled. Till that certificate is cancelled the petitioner cannot get the second caste certificate. Such a course is illegal. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it is clearly mentioned in the Government Circular dated 24/8/1995 that migrants in Maharashtra need not go to their original State simply for obtaining caste certificates which can be obtained in this State. However, benefits/concessions admissible to their caste will be available to them in their original State only and such certificates should not be verified by the Scrutiny Committee of this State. After so observing the Scrutiny Committee has cancelled and confiscated the caste certificate dated 5/8/04 obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy Collector, Thane, and has returned the first caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 obtained by the petitioner in migrant form from the same Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector, Thane, as per Government Circular dated 21/8/1996. The Scrutiny Committee has clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to any benefits in Maharashtra (vide Government Circular dated 24/8/1995).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. We cannot find any fault with the Scrutiny Committee's order. We are entirely in agreement with the Scrutiny Committee's view. The petitioner has applied for certificates twice. She has got one certificate in migrant form certifying that she is a Chamar. She again applied for another certificate without cancelling or surrendering the first certificate. And surprisingly the same Competent Authority issued her a certificate which is not in migrant form so that she can now get all the benefits in Maharashtra. Such a course is illegal and hence not permissible. Under Section 7 of the said Act such a certificate can be confiscated and cancelled. This is prima facie a case of grave misconduct on the part of the Competent Authority for which it may be liable for penalty under Section 13 of the said Act, which we have quoted hereinabove. If the enquiry which we hope the Secretary of the concerned department will conduct as desired by us discloses that the file is lost because of unholy connivance of some persons with the office of the Competent Authority, law must take its course. It is also necessary to find out why the Scrutiny Committee took such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. The upshot of the above discussion is that as of today there is no validation of caste claim of the petitioner. No Scrutiny Committee has validated her caste claim. The second certificate having been confiscated and cancelled the petitioner will have to get her first certificate dated 16/2/2001 which is in migrant form validated. As per G.R. dated 21/8/96 she cannot get it validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra and even if she gets it validated she cannot get any benefits available to that caste in Maharashtra. The legal position in that behalf is settled by the Supreme Court. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College and Ors. : (1990) 3 SCC 130 the petitioner was born in Andhra Pradesh. He claimed to belong to 'Gaudi' Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner had obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate from the Tahsildar and on that basis he got an employment in S T quota in Government of India undertaking in Bombay, State of Maharashtra. The petitioner came to live in Bombay since the age of nine years. The petitioner in due course submitted application for admission to G. S. Medical College, Bombay seeking benefit of reservation in favour of S.Ts. But he was denied the admission on the basis of a circular issued by the Government of India that a Scheduled Caste/Tribe person who has migrated from the State of origin to some other State for the purpose of seeking education, employment etc. will be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his origin and will be entitled to derive benefits from the State of origin and not from the State to which he has migrated. The Constitution Bench was considering whether the person who is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin and birth continues to have the benefits or privileges or rights in the State of migration.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. After considering Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench held that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe in his original State. The Constitution Bench observed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled to in order to become equals with others but those who go to other areas should ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from disabilities in those areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In Action Committee v. Union of India and Anr. : (1994) 5 SCC 244, the Supreme Court was considering whether where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B. The Supreme Court followed Marri Chandra's case and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that, if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State 'for the purposes of this Constitution'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Mr. Mendadkar has drawn our attention to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hitesh Murkute v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (5) MLJ 454. In our opinion that judgment has no application to the present case. In that case this Court was considering whether a migrant who belonged to a community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any locality which has been divided upon reorganization of States and his caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in such newly formed State is entitled to benefit of reservation in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. This Court held relying on judgment of this Court in Sudhakar Vithal v. State of Maharashtra 2004 (4) MLJ 784 held that such a migrant would be entitled to benefit of reservation even in the State in which part of the locality other than his place of origin has gone. Such are not the facts here. In this case, the petitioner's father belongs to Kanpur, U.P. which was not part of Bombay State prior to State Reorganization Act, 1956 or 1960. This judgment has no application to the present case. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra and Action Committee has been reiterated by it in Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 278. In view of the settled legal position no amount of undertakings or assurances can persuade us to give a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to handover degree certificate to the petitioner as of today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Our attention is drawn by Mr. Mendadkar to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2008) 5 SCC 652, wherein caste certificate of the appellant was invalidated because he had produced false certificate. The Supreme Court observed that admission was taken by the appellant 13 years back and degree was awarded to him four years back. The Supreme Court observed that seat given to the appellant could not at that juncture be re-allotted to any other candidate. The appellant was, therefore, allowed to retain the degree subject to return of financial benefits, if any enjoyed by him and an undertaking that he would not claim Scheduled Tribe status in future. Mr. Mendadkar submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner has already appeared for B Tech examination and the Scrutiny Committee has delayed in passing order on her application for deciding the validity of the caste, the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Yogesh Naikwadi's case may be followed in this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. We must also refer to Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2008 (1) M.L.J. 715, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner therein was invalidated. The petitioner was granted admission to M.B.B.S. Degree course on scheduled caste reserved seat. The petitioner prayed that since she had completed M.B.B.S. Examination her admission be protected. The Division Bench considered the entire law on the point and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench observed that it is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the said Act wherein stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. Constitutional scheme of reservation has to be protected. Several judgments of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Full Bench which have taken a view that the persons who commit fraud are not entitled to protection of benefits of reservation policy fraudulently taken by them. In any case these submissions cannot be considered by us till the caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the circumstances, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The impugned order dated 3/1/08 is confirmed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner's prayer that a direction be given that her degree certificates be returned to her on her filing undertaking is rejected because her caste certificate dated 5/4/04 is cancelled and her caste certificate dated 16/2/01 which is in migrant form has not been validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. Besides the petitioner has wrongly taken admission to the college in Maharashtra on the basis that she is entitled to the benefits of Chamar Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We direct that this judgment along with all the necessary files and a copy of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case (supra) be placed before the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra who can start an indepth inquiry through a high ranking independent officer of his confidence to find out;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">a) When the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector Thane had issued certificate dated 16/2/2001 in migrant form to the petitioner that she belongs to Chamar Scheduled Caste making it clear that she is not entitled to any benefits available to that Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra; how can the same Competent Authority issue another certificate dated 5/8/2004, stating to the contrary i.e. stating that the petitioner ordinarily resides in village Dombivali, Taluka Kalyan, Maharashtra, ignoring the caste certificate of the petitioner's father which was before him, that the petitioner's father is a resident of U.P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">b) Whether the statement made before us that relevant file pertaining to certificate dated 16/2/01 issued in migrant form is lost is correct.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">c) If the file is lost, who is responsible for it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">d) Why did the Scrutiny Committee take such extraordinarily long time to pass the order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">e) If the inquiry reveals that the Competent Authority has issued false caste certificate, we expect the Secretary to initiate action under the relevant provisions of the said Act against the Competent Authority.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The inquiry be conducted independently. Any observation made by us as regards the conduct of the Competent Authority, its staff or the petitioner and her father be treated as prima facie observations. It will be open to the petitioner to get her caste certificate dated 16/2/2001 validated from appropriate Scrutiny Committee. In case the petitioner's caste certificate dated 162/2001 is validated by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee it will be open to her to apply for her degree certificate and at that stage her prayer will be considered in accordance with law.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Needless to say that, if involvement of any staff is disclosed, necessary action must be taken against the staff. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiring officer</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While deciding as to who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs the officer appointed by the Secretary shall take assistance from the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Thakur's case, particularly conclusions drawn therein. The inquiry be completed within a period of three months from today.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Action taken report' be submitted to this Court after three months. Office to place this matter on board before the regular bench for directions for the purpose of taking the 'Action taken report' on record after three months i.e. on 18/1/2010.The Registrar General, High Court is directed to immediately forward copy of this judgment to the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition is disposed of. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2010(1)BomCR352; 2010(1)MhLj470',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, ;caste Certificate Scrutiny C',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '367230'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 4(1, Section 13, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, Section 7, Section 13, The Constitution Bench, Constitution, the Constitution Bench, The Constitution Bench, Constitution, State Reorganization Act

PERSON: Ranjana Desai, Scheduled Caste, Kavita, Chandraprakash Goel, Taluka Kalyan, Mendadkar, Mendadkar, B. Tech, Tech, Gangal, Gangal, Gangal, Vishnu Thakur, Tribes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Backward Classes, thus;13, Caste Certificate.(1, Caste Certificate, Chandraprakash Madhavprakash Goel, Kavita, Shastri Nagar, Scheduled Caste, Kanpur Nagar, Taluka Kalyan, Shastri Nagar, comprehension.15, Mendadkar, Counsel, Mendadkar, practice.16, Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College, Articles 341, Scheduled Tribe, Anr, Marri Chandra's, Mendadkar, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Sudhakar Vithal v. State, Anr, Mendadkar, Mendadkar, M.B.B.S. Degree, Caste Scrutiny, Taluka Kalyan

NORP: J.1, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra

GPE: Chamar, the State of Maharashtra, Thane, Mulund, Mumbai, Thane, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, Chamar, Thane, Thane, Chamar, Thane, Village Dombivli, Thane, Chamar, Thane, Chamar, Counsel, Chamar, Thane, Shilpa, C.R., Thane, District - Kanpur, Chamar, Thane, District Thane, Kanpur, Chamar, Thane, Mumbai, Thane, Chamar, Kanpur, Chamar, Kanpur, U.P., Mumbai, Chamar, Kanpur, Thane, Thane, Chamar, G.R., Andhra, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, S.Ts, States, States, Kanpur, Marri Chandra and, Chamar, the State of Maharashtra, Shilpa, Chamar, Shilpa, Mantralaya, Mumbai

CARDINAL: 3/1/08, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 3, 4, 2004.4, 5/8/2004, 16/2/01, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 9/1/06, 9/1/06, 299, 27/11/07, 27/11/07, 7/1/08, 31/5/08, 3, 4, 29/1/09, 3/1/08, 3/1/08, 3/1/08, 5/8/04, 3, 4, two, 20/4/09, 22/7/09, 5/8/04, 16/2/01, 3, 4, 3, 4, two, 3, 9, 4, 13, less than, two, two, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 11/10/2000Thus, 10/8/1950, 10/8/50, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 16/2/01, 5/8/04, two, 28/6/04, one, 5/8/04, 5/8/04, 24/8/1995).18, one, 3, 130, 342, 5, two, 5, 454, 4, 2, 278, 5, 652, 1, 3/1/08, 5/4/04, 16/2/01, 5/8/2004, 16/2/01, 18/1/2010.The

ORG: the Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division, Scrutiny Committee', the Scrutiny Committee, Standard Examination, Smt, Nanavati Science College, the Government of Maharashtra'.5, the State of Maharashtra, the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, Court, the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, Contempt Petition No, Court, The Scrutiny Committee, 7th Semester of final year, Court, the Scrutiny Committee, Court, B Tech, Court, the Scrutiny Committee's, the Scrutiny Committee's, the State of Maharashtra, the State of Maharashtra.11, Scrutiny Committee's, the Competent Authority, Competent Authority, Scrutiny, the Scrutiny Committees, Uttar Pradesh, Court, the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Regulation of Issuance and Verification, Competent Authorities, the Scrutiny Committees, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, The Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, The Competent Authority, Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, Competent Authorities, The Competent Authorities, the Competent Authorities, the Competent Authority, Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, the Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste, the State/Union Territory, the State/Union, U.P., State, the State of Maharashtra, the State of Maharashtra, Scheduled Castes, the Competent Authority, the State of Maharashtra, the Scrutiny Committee, the Deputy Collector, The Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, Competent Authority, the Scrutiny Committee, Competent Authority, The Scrutiny Committee, Uttar Pradesh', The Scrutiny Committee, The Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee, U.P., The Scrutiny Committee, U.P., the State of Maharashtra, The Scrutiny Committee, The Scrutiny Committee, the Government Circular, State, State, State, the Scrutiny Committee of this State, the Scrutiny Committee, Government Circular, The Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra (vide Government Circular, the Scrutiny Committee's, the Scrutiny Committee's, Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, the concerned department, the Competent Authority, the Scrutiny Committee, No Scrutiny Committee, the Caste Scrutiny Committee of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court, Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Government of India, G. S. Medical College, the Government of India, State, State, State, State, the State of migration.20, State, Action Committee v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, State, State, The Supreme Court, Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes, State, State, State, State A, State, State, Hitesh Murkute, Court, State, State, Court, MLJ, State, U.P., Bombay State, the Supreme Court, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee, the Supreme Court, Yogesh Naikwadi's, Priyanka Omprakash Panwar, M.B.B.S. Examination, Court, the Supreme Court, Scrutiny Committee, Court, the Social Welfare Department of Government of Maharashtra, the Competent Authority, Competent Authority, Dombivali, Maharashtra, the Scrutiny Committee, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, Scrutiny Committee, Scrutiny Committee, Court, Court, Registrar General, the Secretary Social Welfare Department

DATE: 19/3/1986, the month of June, 16/2/2001, the first year, the academic year 2004-05, 2005, a period of, eight weeks, six weeks, March, 2008, the month of May, 2008, today, May 2008, today, 2009, 2000, 2003, less than six months, two years, 13271, 10/8/1950, 1950, 16/2/2001, 10/8/1950, 16/2/2001, 24/8/1995, 16/2/2001, 21/8/1996, today, 16/2/2001, 1990, the age of nine years, 1994, 2007, 2004, 1956, 1960, 2009, 2008, 13 years, four years back, 2008, 16/2/2001, 16/2/2001, 162/2001, a period of, three months, today, three months, three months

ORDINAL: 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, first, second, second, first, second, first, first, second, first, first, second, first, 3rd, 4th

PRODUCT: the Full Bench of, The Full Bench, The Full Bench, Dombivli, the Full Bench, the Full Bench of, the Full Bench of

LOC: Maharashtra, Maharashtra

FAC: Tahsildar, Subhash Chandra

WORK_OF_ART: Scheduled Caste/Tribe of the State of his, the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the Scheduled Castes

MONEY: 715