Satish Limbraj Adatrao And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1331 Bom

JUDGMENT

Palshikar V.G., J.

1. By these petitions, petitioners have challenged the order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee, rejecting appeals of petitioners for validation of the Caste Certificates which then existed in favour of petitioners.

2. This decision holding certificates of petitioners to be invalid was rendered at a point of time when effect, was not given by State of Maharashtra to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development and Anr., 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) 690 : A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 94. Almost immediately after this decision, the judgment and the directions given therein were fully implemented by State of Maharashtra and Vigilance Cell was established to assist every Caste Scrutiny Committee.

3. The burden is and has always been on the claimant who claims that he belongs to a particular caste or a tribe and that has to be discharged by him to the satisfaction of the Tribunal before which he is required to go. It cannot be disputed that powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution which this Court has, can be conveniently used for granting another opportunity to such a person or going back to the Tribunal or Committee and establish his case all over again. It must be kept in mind that all these procedures have been established by legislation or judgments in order to help a particular section of the society which suffered for centuries because of their backwardness. Such sufferings are remarkably reducing. In such circumstances, when Supreme Court required establishment of a well designed procedure for the purposes of verification of castes, a step forward in this behalf was taken and it has been implemented. In such circumstances, grant of an opportunity to use this broader avenue for proving his claim would not be an incorrect exercise by our power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

4. Shri M.S. Deshmukh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Committee placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Pandurang Shriram Gadekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(2) All Maharashtra Law Reporter 843, where this Court has very categorically observed that rejection of Caste claim by a Scrutiny Committee cannot be set aside on the ground that the claim was decided before the Constitution of Vigilance Cell. The reason given is that the burden is always on the claimant and not for the State to disprove his claim. This judgment nowhere says that an opportunity after establishment of Vigilance Cell should not be given. In view of the fact alleged by petitioners by separate civil application that now they are in their possession certain evidence which may favourably help validation of their caste claims. In our opinion this judgment has no impediment in setting aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and we make it clear that we are not setting aside the caste validity certificate which is passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee only on the ground of non establishment of Vigilance Cell. We are setting it aside because the set up of Vigilance Cell gives a broader perspective for verification. There is also averment that certain additional evidence is available with petitioners. Therefore, we set aside the order and grant them opportunity to prove their claims.

5. In the result, therefore, petitions succeed. The matters are remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Aurangabad for decision in accordance with law. In view of this order, Civil Application Nos. 9356/04 and 9357/04 are disposed of.