2013 (8) TMI 563 - SC - Indian Laws

Only legally injured persons can challenge caste certificate validity; affidavits not evidence under Section 3 Evidence Act

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others

The SC held that only a person suffering legal injury has locus standi to challenge caste certificate validity; a stranger cannot intervene without such ... Validity of the caste certificate of the appellant - obtained employment by way of misrepresentation - not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category - Who may Initiate a proceeding - Locus standi - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons - only a person who had suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law - the law on the said point can be summarized to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he had suffered legal injury - Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. Locus standi of respondent - As respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent was in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever - a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever - However, in the exceptional circumstances if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-moto, in such respect -Cross-examination was one part of the principles of natural justice. Affidavit - Whether evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Held that:- It was a settled legal proposition that an affidavit was not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 - the filing of an affidavit of one’s own statement, in one’s own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact-situation. Respondent had not been pursuing the matter in a bonafide manner, and had not raised any public interest, rather he abused the process of the court only to harass the appellant, the respondent was restrained from intervening in the matter any further, and also from remaining a party to it, and he was also liable to pay costs - the Scrutiny Committee had already conducted an inquiry in relation to this matter, and the only grievance of the appellant was that there had been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the fact that the applications filed by him, were not decided upon - before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee - the Scrutiny Committee had already taken a decision, the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the caste certificate of the appellant.2. Locus standi of respondent no. 5 to challenge the caste certificate.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses.4. The role and procedure of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.5. The legal significance of affidavits as evidence.6. Costs and penalties for abuse of the legal process.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Caste Certificate:The appellant was issued a caste certificate on 19.10.1989, confirming his status as Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes), which was verified by the Scrutiny Committee and supported by a Vigilance Cell report. Respondent no. 5 challenged the certificate in 2009, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. The High Court remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a de novo enquiry.2. Locus Standi of Respondent No. 5:The Court emphasized that only an aggrieved person can challenge an act/action/order in a court of law. Respondent no. 5, not belonging to any reserved category, lacked the locus standi to challenge the appellant's caste certificate. The Court cited several precedents, including *State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta* and *Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors.*, to support this position.3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that the Scrutiny Committee violated natural justice principles by not allowing him to cross-examine witnesses. The Court upheld that cross-examination is integral to natural justice, citing *State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan* and other cases. The Scrutiny Committee's failure to decide on the appellant's applications for recalling witnesses and cross-examination was found to be a serious procedural lapse.4. Role and Procedure of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee:The Court referred to the guidelines established in *Km. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development*, which mandates a thorough investigation by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee had already conducted an inquiry and found the appellant's caste certificate valid. The presumption of regularity under Section 114 Ill.(e) of the Evidence Act was applicable, and strong evidence was required to rebut this presumption.5. Legal Significance of Affidavits as Evidence:The Court reiterated that affidavits are not considered evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless the deponent is available for cross-examination. The Court cited *Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan & Ors.* and *Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani* to affirm this principle. The affidavit of Mr. Supdu Musa Tadvi, mentioned by respondent no. 5, was disregarded as he did not appear before the Scrutiny Committee.6. Costs and Penalties for Abuse of the Legal Process:The Court found respondent no. 5's actions reprehensible and without a sense of responsibility. Respondent no. 5 was restrained from further intervening in the matter and was ordered to pay costs of Rs. one lakh to the District Collector, Aurangabad, to be deposited in the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee account. The District Collector was authorized to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue if not paid within the stipulated period.Conclusion:The appeal was disposed of with directions to the Scrutiny Committee to allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses and decide the applications filed by him. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee, if already taken without following principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated. Respondent no. 5 was penalized for abusing the legal process and harassing the appellant.