The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 17th December 2021 passed by Respondent No.1 invalidating the Petitioner’s caste claim, and for direction to issue a caste validity certificate in favor of the Petitioner.
The Court observed that the Vigilance Cell Report is not evidence of caste per se.
Brief Facts:
In January 2020, the elections for the village Panchayat of Nrusinhwadi were held and the Petitioner contested the said election for the post of Sarpanch and she was elected as Sarpanch. The Petitioner had contested the said election on the basis of her caste. The caste certificate was sent for verification to the Respondents who contested the Petitioner’s claim of caste Kumbhar. The Vigilance Cell was directed to conduct an inquiry and a report dated 22nd September 2021 came to be submitted by Vigilance Cell to Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee conducted a hearing wherein both the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed documents and affidavits in support of their case and after considering the same along with the Vigilance Cell report, by the impugned Order dated 17th December 2021, the Respondent No.1 invalidated the Petitioner’s caste claim.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her case have not been properly considered by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. He contended that the Vigilance Cell Report is discarded by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee without giving any reasons. He invited the Court’s attention to various documents produced by the Petitioner in support of her case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel of the Respondent argued that whether the Petitioner is really a daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, as asserted by her, is under serious dispute. He contended that the Petitioner’s family belongs to Village Kurni, Taluka Hukkeri of Belagavi which is in Karnataka State, and as such Petitioner was not a resident of Maharashtra at the time of her birth and as such, she is not entitled to caste benefits here.
The Counsel further contended that the real name of Petitioner’s father is Basavanni Lagamappa Kumbhar, who was a resident of Karnataka State and not Maharashtra State. He contended that both the aspects of caste and place of origin of the Petitioner’s family are under serious challenge.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the Vigilance Cell Report is not evidence of caste per se and though it has persuasive value, the same is not binding upon the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, there is a duty cast upon the Scrutiny Committee to give reasons, if it rejects the Vigilance Cell Report.
Further, the Court found merit in the submission of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the evidence produced by the Petitioner herself is contradictory ― there was no valid explanation for these obvious contradictions. The Petitioner had previously claimed to be belonging to the “Hindu Nhavi” caste and there also, the complainant objected that she was born in Karnataka State and her father was also a permanent resident thereof, who lived there till his death and therefore, the Petitioner therein is not entitled to claim caste benefit in Maharashtra State.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no perversity or apparent illegality in the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. The Petition is thus devoid of merits.
Case Title: Parvati Dattatray Kumbhar vs Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Claims & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R. D. Dhanuka and Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sathaye
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Patwardhan
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Kavita N. Solunke and Mr. Vijay D. Patil
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :