Dr.

AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW, WADALA,

MUMBAI

Team Code:

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. of 2022
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

APPELLANTS: KUMARI MADHURI PATILA and Ors.

Vs.
RESPONDENT: ADDL. COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS and Ors.

AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5

MR. VIKRAMADITYA MURALIDHARAN

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.5
ROLL NO 155 L.L.B. (SEM V)
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

INDEX

S. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO. NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS 6

5. AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY 7

6. ABSTRACT OF ISSUES 11

7. SUMMERY OF PLEADING 12

8. BODY OF ARGUMENTS 13

9. PRAYER 16

10. VERIFICATION 17

11. VAKALATNAMA 18

LAST PAGE 18

2
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
Sr. Short Full Form
No. Form
1 AIR All India Reporter
2 SCC Supreme Court Cases
3 Hon’ble Honourable
4 Addl. Additional
5 CPC Code of Civil Procedure

3
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTION: -
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

STATUTES: -
1. THE CRIMINAL TRIBE, 1888
2. THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (AMENDMENT)
ACT, 1956
3. THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (AMENDMENT)
ACT, 1976
4. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
5. THE CENSUS OF INDIA
6. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908

BOOKS: -
M.P. JAIN – THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CASES CITED: -
1. Chairman and Managing Director FCI vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira,
AIR 2017 SC 3271
2. Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham
(2012)1SCC333
3. Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims
(2012)1SCC333
4. Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade vs State of Maharastra
1987 (3) BomCR 615

4
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent would like to humbly submit that this writ under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
 Direction (11) in Madhuri Patil states that order passed by the scrutiny
committee shall be final and conclusive, subject only to challenge under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
 Direction (12) states that no suit (before a civil court) or other
proceedings before any other authority should lie against the orders of the
scrutiny committee.
 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) provides that
courts have to try all civil suits unless barred. The creation of scrutiny
committee was by judgment of Supreme Court
 Point 15 in the Kumari Judgement states The Committee which is
empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a
finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review
of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of
fact.
 In Chairman and Managing Director FCI vs Jagdish Balaram
Bahira, AIR 2017 SC 3271, the Court held that though the power of the
Supreme Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional
power vested in the court for rendering complete justice and is a power
which is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must have
due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act
XXIII of 2001 holds the field.
 Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Estoppel is that rule which
prohibits a person from contradicting what was earlier said by him in a
court of law, which was a concept discussed in this case.

5
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO…………… of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

KUMARI MADHURI PATIL … Appellant

Versus

ADDL. COMMISSIONER & ORS. …Respondents

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CHALLENGING IMPUNGED JUDGEMENT PASSED
BY DIVISIONAL BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON
02.09.1994 REGARDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE VALIDITY CERTIFICATE
TO THE PETITIONER WHICH IS INVALIDATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4.

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 5

6
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO…………… of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CHALLENGING IMPUNGED
JUDGEMENT PASSED BY DIVISIONAL BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON 02.09.1994 REGARDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE VALIDITY CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER
WHICH IS INVALIDATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4.

KUMARI MADHURI PATIL

RESIDING AT MULUND VILLAGE,
MUMBAI. … Appellant

Versus

1. ADDL. COMMISSIONER ,
KOKAN DIVISION,
THANE.

2. EXECUTIVE MAGISTATE,
MULUND, BOMBAY.

7
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THANE.

4. THE CHAIRMAN,
SCHEDULED TRIBE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
PUNE.

5. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MUMBAI. …Respondents

TO,

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS LORDSHIP'S COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE AFFIDAVIT IN

REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.
5 ABOVENAMED.

8
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

Case Note:
Constitution - caste certificate - Constitution of India - appellant procured
Scheduled Tribe caste certificate from Divisional Executive Magistrate on basis
of earlier Order passed by High Court in favour of her sister directing
Additional Commissioner to issue her Scheduled Tribe caste certificate - caste
certificates issued to appellants and relatives by Executive Magistrate without
proper enquiry and investigation - High Court found that appellants were
backward class but proceeded on erroneous footing that they were genuine
Scheduled Tribes entitled to benefits - reasoning of High Court untenable

Case Facts:
1. The appellants are Suchita and Madhuri, daughters of Laxman Pandurang
Patil.
2. The appellants wanted to take admission for M.B.B.S to a medical
college.
3. For ensuring admission, the appellants used a fraudulent caste certificate
and also did not approach the competent officer.
4. She has shown the order issued by the High Court in favour of her sister
Suchita and secured the certificate and got the admission.
5. When the educational institution got the air about the fake caste
certificate used by the student, they realized that indeed it was not
authenticated. As a result, the institution canceled her admission on the
grounds of forgery of the document, which was crucial for admission.

Legal Issue:
Whether the appellant can plead the doctrine of estoppel as per Section 115 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Contention:
The plaintiff contended that, as the educational institution has previously
accepted her ‘false’ caste certificate, it cannot be rejected after a certain amount
of time, and therefore, she pleads estoppel.

9
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

Ration and Decision:

Justices K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala delivered the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
They held that:
1. The cancellation of the social certificate issued by the Executive
magistrates concerned by the scrutiny committee was legal.
2. It is a fundamental duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper
and humanism and a spirit of inquiry to reform himself in his onward
thrust or strive to achieve excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity.
3. School and college certificates hold no value as per the appellants, as the
admission has taken place on forged grounds.
4. The plea of promissory estoppel or equity has no application. Courts
would be the ones to circumspect and vary in considering such cases.

Conclusion:
1. In the Madhuri Patel case, the Supreme Court of India said that if the
party to whoever the representation was being projected, somehow
recognizes that it was a false representation then, she will not be
entitled to the claim of the doctrine of estoppel.
2. In Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner’s case, as the institute, the
doctrine of estoppel did not recognize the representation won’t apply.
3. Finally, the party which took admission to the educational institution
by fraud was not permitted to continue studying in the same institution
upon the claim of estoppel.
4.

10
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

ABSTRACT OF ISSUES

I. Whether or not the Petition under Article 32 of Indian

Constitution admissible in this case?

II. Whether or not fundamental right of Appellants have been

violated?

III. Whether or not being aggressive with implementation of

the statutory provision?
I.

11
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Whether or not the Writ Petition under Article 32 of Indian Constitution

admissible in this case?
The Respondent No. 5 would like to plead to the Hon’ble Court that the above-
mentioned writ petition under article 32 of Indian Constitution is not
maintainable. Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 states The Courts shall
(subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a
civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred. The creation of scrutiny committee was by judgment of
Supreme Court.

II.Whether or not fundamental right of Appellants have been violated?

The Respondent plead to the Honourable court that fundamental rights have
been not violated of the Appellants.

III.Whether or not being aggressive with implementation of the statutory

provision?

Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner case is a landmark case of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The major fundamental concept involved in this
case was the concept of ‘Estoppel’, which is covered under Section 115 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the Madhuri Patel case, the Supreme Court of
India said that if the party to whoever the representation was being projected,
somehow recognizes that it was a false representation then, he/she will not be
entitled to the claim of the doctrine of estoppel.

RELEVANT PROVISION:

 Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Estoppel is that rule which
prohibits a person from contradicting what was earlier said by him in a
court of law, which was a concept discussed in this case.
 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) provides that
courts have to try all civil suits unless barred.

12
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether or not the Writ Petition under Article 32 of Indian

Constitution admissible in this case?
 The Respondent No. 5 would like to plead to the Hon’ble Court that the
above-mentioned writ petition under article 32 of Indian Constitution is
not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 2-9-
1994 in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patil versus Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Government of Maharashtra (Civil
Appeal No. 5854 of 1994, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14767 of 1993)
has directed that the caste certificates be scrutinised at the earliest and
with utmost expedition and promptitude. The instructions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to streamline the procedure for the issuance of caste
certificates and verification of social status, their scrutiny and their
approval to all State Governments/UT Administrations was circulated by
the Ministry of Tribal Affairs in June, 2004. The DoPT has also issued
instructions to all the States/UTs in April, 2012 regarding
verification/issuance of Caste certificates by the District authorities.
 Direction (11) in Madhuri Patil states that order passed by the scrutiny
committee shall be final and conclusive, subject only to challenge under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
 Direction (12) states that no suit (before a civil court) or other
proceedings before any other authority should lie against the orders of the
scrutiny committee.
 Point 15 in the Kumari Judgement states The Committee which is
empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a
finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review
of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of
fact.
 In Chairman and Managing Director FCI vs Jagdish Balaram
Bahira, AIR 2017 SC 3271, the Court held that Though the power of the
Supreme Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional

13
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

power vested in the court for rendering complete justice and is a power
which is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must have
due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act
XXIII of 2001 holds the field.
 In Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification,
(2012)1SCC113, the Supreme Court held that, The Caste Scrutiny
Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and
therefore, can only scrutinise the documents and material produced by the
applicant In case, the material produced by the applicant does not prove
his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or
disprove his claim. The Court further held, While applying the affinity
test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled
tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted

II. Whether or not fundamental right of Appellants have been violated?

 The Respondents plead to the Honourable court that fundamental rights

have been not violated of the Appellants. The Supreme Court, directions
issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of Constitution,
were valid and laudable, as they were made to fill vacuum in absence of
any legislation, to ensure that only genuine scheduled caste and scheduled
tribe candidates secured benefits of reservation.
 The first specification of Scheduled Tribe in relation to a particular
State/Union Territory is by a notified Order of the President, after
consultation with the State Government/UT concerned, as per provisions
of Article 342 of the Constitution. The guidelines for issuance of the
Scheduled Tribes certificates have been circulated among the States/UTs,
vide the circular No. 35/1/72RU (SCT-V) dated 2-5-75 and circular No.
BC 12025/2/76-SCT-I dated 22-3-1977 by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

14
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

III. Whether or not being aggressive with implementation of the

statutory provision?

 Held, In Madhuri Patel vs. Addl. Commissioner’s case, as the institute,

the doctrine of estoppel did not recognize the representation won’t apply.
- Courts could not direct creation of posts which was prerogative of
executive or legislature.
 In Dayaram Vs Sudhir Batham and Ors,(2012) 1SCC333 the Court
held Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) provides
that courts have to try all civil suits unless barred. The creation of
scrutiny committee was by judgment of Supreme Court.

RELEVANT PROVISION:
 Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Estoppel is that rule which
prohibits a person from contradicting what was earlier said by him in a
court of law, which was a concept discussed in this case.
 Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) provides that
the Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have
jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.


15
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

PRAYER
In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent No. 5 humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court, to be graciously
pleased to:
I. That this Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court
Order/Judgement to may be continued and rejected with cost.
II. Cost of the Petition be provided for.
III. To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, which the court may deem fit
in light of justice equity and good conscience.

AND FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT

SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

FILED BY:

FILED ON:

Date: 13th August, 2022.

Place: New Delhi

Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO,
5

16
Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

17
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Xyz, SECRETARY, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai

on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 aged about 31 years, Indian
Inhabitant, the Respondent No. 5 abovenamed, do hereby state and
declare on solemn affirmation that what is stated in paragraphs No. 1
to 4 are true to my own knowledge and belief and reaming paras are
based on legal submission and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at New Delhi )

Aforesaid this day of 13th August, 2022. )
Appellant

Explained & interpreted by me:

BEFORE ME;

VIKRAMADITYA MURALIDHARAN
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5

18
 Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai
PETITION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.5

VAKALATNAMA

I/We am/are not a member/members

of the Welfare Fund. Therefore Stamp
of Rs.2/- is not affixed herewith.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO…………… of 2022

KUMARI MADHURI PATIL … Appellant

Versus
ADDL. COMMISSIONER & ORS. …Respondents

I above named XYZ do hereby appoint and authorise MR. VIKRAMADITYA

MURALIDHARAN, Advocate, to appear, plead and to act, for me/us in the above matter.
In witness whereof I/We have set my/our hand to this writing.

Dated this 13th day of August, 2022.

Accepted Signature

MR. VIKRAMADITYA MURALIDHARAN XYZ

Advocate for the Appellant Respondent

Address:

Mo.

E-Mail:

19