NDLI: Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. and Vice Versa

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Admission of additional evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Evidence-Admission of additional evidence, principle of- Admissibility of evidence as to "similar fact"-Affidavits evidence-Value of Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIX Rule 3 Malafides-Allegation of malafides against men in power-Court duty to view such allegations vis-a- vis purity in public life, explained. - Post-graduate medical examination in Maharashtra- Allegation of manipulation in the grade sheets of M.D. (Gynae) examination to clear the candidate, a daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra-Adverse remarks against the Chief Minister, whether justified as a finding of fact or as a comment based on no evidence-Judicial pronouncements and duty of the Judges. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi appellant in CA 4453/86 and respondent in CA 4452/86 was a failed candidate at the M.D. examination in thespeciality of Gynaecology and Obstetric held in the year 1985. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay challenging the results of the M.D. examination held in November' 85. He alleged that favouritism was shown by one Dr. Rawal who went to the extent of tampering with grade sheets of the examinees so as to clear unsuccessful candidates and in particular Smt. Chandrakala Patil daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra appellant in CA 4452/86 and respondent in cross appeal CA 4453/86 . .In support of the writ petition alleging how the malpractice took place, he filed an affidavit (hearsay evidence) of one Dr. Manikant Mishra, who is supposed to have heard certain talks that took place between Dr. Rawal and Smt. Chandrnkala Patil at Dr. Rawals' Chambers and that what the deponent heard came to be proved by the M.D. (Gynae) results in which one Dr. Smita Thakkar and Smt. Chandrakala Patil who could not clear the said examination thrice were shown to have passed. It was alleged that the tampering of the grade sheets were done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the appellant in C.A. 4452/86. The said allegations were refuted by the appellant Shivaji Rao Patil, Smt. Chandrakala Patil, his daughter, Dr.Rawal and another Dr. Shah on oath by filing their affidavits. The respondent, though he had verified his petition, did not disclose the so called reliable source of information derived by him about the allegations made against the appellant & others. The learned Single Judge held: (i) that the evidence of Respondent Madhav Gosavi as well as of Dr. Mishra were unsatisfactory and unreliable: (ii) that it was impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of Dr, Mishra as it was not known how he came to contact Dr. Gosavi or why he did not choose to file affidavit till 28.2.1986 when the appellant Patil had already filed his affidavit on 26.1.86; (iii) that the allegation and the averments made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition were wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient because the Respondent-petitioner had not disclosed from whom he derived them; (iv) that there was tampering with grade sheets of Respondents 4 to 15 C by Dr. Rawal; and (v) that in the facts and circumstances of this it could -, reasonably be inferred that the alteration was done at the behest of the appellant in CA 4452/86 and her daughter Chandrakala his was because Dr. Rawal was an experienced examiner, not young or immature and a person like him would not proceed to do a criminal act and tamper with the record of the examination on his own with a view merely to please the people in power. The risk involved In what Dr. Rawal had done was so enormous that it was difficult to conceive that he did it on his own. Accordingly he allowed the writ petition, passed some structures against Dr. Rawal and the appellant in CA 4452/86 and gave certain directions about examination of other candidates whose results were also affected by the conduct of Dr. Rawal. An application made before the Judge for adducing certain additional evidence was rejected. After the judgment the Vice Chancellor and the Chief Minister resigned from their posts.Three appeals, No. 214/86 by Dr. Rawal No. 215/86 by Dr. Chandrakala Patil and No. 216/86 by the appellant Shivaji Rao Patil, were heard and disposed of by the Division Bench consisting of the Acting Chief Justice Kalia and Shah J. of the Bombay High Court on 16th June, 1986. So far as appeal No. 216 of 1986 is concerned, according to the Division Bench; (i) there was no direct evidence that the alterations in the grades of Chandrakala Patil were made at the instance of the appellant; (ii) the reasonings of the trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that respondents No. 3 and 4 the original petition were responsible for getting Dr. Rawal to alter the grades was based on certain contingencies and were too tenuous for the conclusion based on such reasoning to amount to a positive finding; (iii) Merely because respondent No. 3 to the original petition held a position of great power and would have been happy to see that his daughter had passed the M.D. examination, it was difficult to conclude as a finding of fact that he must have influenced Dr. Rawal to alter the gracles of his daughter; (iv) it was true that a seasoned examiner like Dr. Rawal would not have taken the risk involved in altering the grades except under a great pressure or pursuation, but it cannot he ruled out the possibility of various motives which might have induced Dr. Rawal to take the risk of altering the grades; (v) however in all probability Dr. Rawal would not have acted unless he had made him assured that the appellant Shivaji Rao Patil was behind the person who pursuaded him to alter the grades; (vi) that when allegation of this type is made against anyone holding a position of prestige and power, it was necessary that the evidence should be closely examined before holding such allegation well founded. Therefore the Bench observed that the remarks made against the appellant. Nilangekar Patil cannot he supported as conclusions arrived at against him but these can he regarded as adverse comments and not finding of fact and such comments were not wholly unjustified in the facts of this case. However, the Division Bench refused to entertain an application to introduce additional evidence as part of the claim of public interest litigation. Hence the appeal No. CA 4452/86 by Nilangekar Patil against the adverse comments were allowed to remain and there was a cross appeal 4453/86 by Dr. Madhav Gosavi D against refusal to accept additional evidence.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee
Neutral Citation	1986 INSC 260
Petitioner	Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil
Respondent	Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. And Vice Versa
SCR	[1987] 1 S.C.R. 458
Judgement Date	1986-12-09
Case Number	4452

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. and Vice Versa

Please Log-in to view this content

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors.

Keshav Vs. Shivajirao & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Justice S.s. Sandhawalia (retd.) and Vice Versa

U.p State Electricity Board. Lucknow & Ors. Vs. City Board, Mussoorie & Ors. Etc. (and Vice Versa)

National Medical Commission & Anr Vs. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College & Ors

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gowthu Ranghunayakulu and Ors.

State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. No. 1 Vs. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, and Vice Versa

Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.v. Alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Ors.

Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. and Vice Versa

Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. and Vice Versa

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors.

Keshav Vs. Shivajirao & Ors.

Union of India Vs. Justice S.s. Sandhawalia (retd.) and Vice Versa

U.p State Electricity Board. Lucknow & Ors. Vs. City Board, Mussoorie & Ors. Etc. (and Vice Versa)

National Medical Commission & Anr Vs. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College & Ors

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gowthu Ranghunayakulu and Ors.

State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. No. 1 Vs. The Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad, and Vice Versa

Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.v. Alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Ors.

Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. and Vice Versa