Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
It was contended that the State of Maharashtra is obliged to constitute the
scrutiny committees as per the directions given by the Apex Court in the
case of Madhuri Patil (II) reported in 1997 (5) SCC 437. According to
Mr.Deshmukh, the Apex Court has made it clear that the composition of the
scrutiny committees shall be such that it includes the Additional
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:32:01 :::
S.H.HADAP 43/79 WP 853/2012 & CONNECTED PETITIONS
Commissioner (Revenue) as its Chairman. It was contended that though the
State of Maharashtra has enacted the Act of 2000, it has not laid down the
composition of the scrutiny committees. Mr.Deshmukh thus contended that
as per the ratio of Dayaram's case the directions given in the Madhuri
Patil's case will continue to bind the State Government, especially in the
absence of any legislative enactment covering the issue. He has further
pointed out that it was at the instance of the State of Maharashtra itself that
the review petition was preferred in the Apex Court and in the said review
petition, the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (II) laid down that the
Additional Commissioner (Revenue) should be the Chairman of the
Committee. Mr.Anturkar, supporting the said submissions, argued that as
per the provision of the Land Revenue Code, the post of Additional
Commissioner (Revenue) and the District Collector, are not equivalent and
thus there is clear breach of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of
Madhuri Patil. Mr.Anturkar relied upon sections 6, 7(2), 11(2) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Thus, according to the learned counsels,
the Government Resolution dated 30.07.2011 is bad in law, as it does not
adhere to the norms specified by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri
Patil (II) in respect of the composition of the Scrutiny Committees.