WP 252/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 252/2015
Nilesh S/o Changdeo Rajput (Salokh),
aged about 27 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o At village Yelgaon,
Tah. And Dist. Buldana. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola,
Division Amravati.
2. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Buldana Division, Buldana.
3. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Buldana,
through its Chairman. RESPONDENTS
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 16 TH JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 21.10.2014 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati).
2. The petitioner claims to belong to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati) and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. The scrutiny committee, on an appreciation of the material on record, by the order dated, 21.10.2014, rejected the caste ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:30:17 ::: WP 252/15 2 Judgment claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the instant petition.
3. Shri Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the scrutiny committee has not considered the material on record in the right perspective while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that a mere reference is made to the vigilance cell report in the order, without considering the report. It is submitted that though in the vigilance cell enquiry it was found that the two persons holding the validity certificate are the cousin uncles of the petitioner, the scrutiny committee has wrongfully discarded the validity certificates issued in favour of the cousin uncles of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner has not established his relationship with them. It is submitted that before holding so, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to have considered the report of the vigilance cell and ought to have recorded a finding as to why it did not agree with the vigilance report that the two persons were indeed related to the petitioner. It is submitted that the scrutiny committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner after observing that the petitioner had failed to prove his caste claim on the basis of the documents. It is submitted that since the scrutiny committee has failed to properly perform its duty by not considering the vigilance cell report which clearly records that the two persons to whom the caste validity certificates were issued are the cousin ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:30:17 ::: WP 252/15 3 Judgment uncles of the petitioner, the order of the scrutiny committee is liable to be set aside.
4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the order of the scrutiny committee. It is submitted that since the petitioner could not prove his relationship with the two persons, who he claimed were his cousin uncles, the scrutiny committee has rightly discarded the caste validity certificates issued in their favour while considering the caste claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the vigilance report was considered by the scrutiny committee while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the vigilance cell report and the order of the scrutiny committee, it appears that the scrutiny committee was not justified in not considering the vigilance report in which it was recorded that the two persons to whom the caste validity certificate s were issued are the cousin uncles of the petitioner. The scrutiny committee has made a mere reference to the vigilance report in paragraph 4 of the order of the scrutiny committee. It is merely observed in the order of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner was asked to give an explanation to the report of the police vigilance cell. There is no mention in the order that ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:30:17 ::: WP 252/15 4 Judgment the police vigilance report was considered by the scrutiny committee while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. If it was recorded in the vigilance report that validity certificates were issued in favour of the cousin uncles of the petitioner, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to give at least a few reasons for discarding the observations in the vigilance cell report. This is not done by the scrutiny committee and the scrutiny committee has observed that the petitioner has not established his relationship with the two persons, without giving due weightage to the family tree and the affidavits filed by the two persons in whose favour the caste validity certificates were issued by the committee. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision in the caste claim of the petitioner, on merits.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision in the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the respondent no.3-Committee on the 10 th of July, 2017 so that issuance of notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 00:30:17 :::