Prashant S/O Prataprao ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 748 Bom

ORDER

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November/1st December, 2005 passed by the Castes and Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, (for short the Scrutiny Committee) invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Bhope tribe".

2. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee on the following grounds.

(i) The Scrutiny Committee did not consider the report of the Vigilance Cell.

(ii) The Scrutiny Committee did not properly appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner and in particular the documents at Sr. Nos. 7 and 12 as listed in the impugned order.

(iii) The decision of the Scrutiny Committee is contrary to the ratio of the decision of this Court in Aniket v. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (unreported).

3. Before the Scrutiny Committee in all 12 documents were produced. Documents at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 which relate to the petitioner himself, his father show the caste of the petitioner and his father as Maratha. In the documents at Sr. Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the caste is not mentioned and they are not relevant for determining the caste. The document at Sr. No. 1 is a certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, validity of which was under consideration before the Scrutiny Committee, and therefore, the same is not relevant. The document at Sr. No. 12 strongly relied upon by the petitioner is a copy of the decision in File No. 59/1 rendered by District Court, Osmanabad. The said case related to a dispute between private persons in respect of right of worship and performing Pooja of Tuljabhavani Goddess. While considering the issue as to who had the right to worship, the District Judge appears to have observed that the defendants Nos. 2 to 21 therein were "Palkars, Brahmins, Lingayats and Rajputs", defendant No. 22 and 23 were "Yevdari" defendants 24 and 25 were "Gondhali" and defendants 26 to 29 were "Bhope". The observations made by the District Judge in the said judgment regarding the caste of the parties was in relation to their right to perform Pooja and Worship in the temple. The District Court was not at all required, nor had the jurisdiction to determine the caste of the parties so as to determine the social status of the parties therein. The decision rendered in the said case is not a judgment in rem but is a judgment in personam and binds only the parties therein. The defendant No. 8 in the said suit is alleged to be the ancestor of the present petitioner. There is no reference to the caste of the defendant No. 8 in the said judgment of the District Court. Therefore, assuming that the judgment is relevant, it did not determine the caste of the ancestor of the petitioner as "Bhope".

4. As far as document at Sr. No. 7, on which the reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a certificate issued by the manager of Tuljabhavani Temple Trust, Tuljapur, dated 1-4-2005. In the said certificate, he has certified that the father of the petitioner was a member of Bhopi/Palikar/Pujari community. Firstly, the certificate is of the year 2005. Secondly, the manager has no authority to decide the caste of the persons and therefore, the said certificate does not lead the case of the petitioner.

5. As against the two documents at Sr. Nos. 7 and 12 the school record of the petitioner and his father showed the caste of the petitioner as Maratha. The Scrutiny Committee has considered all the documents produced before it and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not proved his caste to be "Bhope."

6. Second contention of Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the report of the Vigilance Cell. In para No. 3 of the order, the Scrutiny Committee has observed that, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner to explain adverse part in the report of the Vigilance Cell and a copy thereof was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 28-6-2005. Thus the Scrutiny Committee did consider the report of the Vigilance Cell. Since the report of the Vigilance Cell was adverse to the petitioner and the Scrutiny Committee was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, it appears to have not relied upon the adverse remarks in the report of the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner cannot make a grievance about it. If the report had been favourable to the petitioner and had not been considered, then the petitioner would be justified in the criticism. However, as the report was adverse to the petitioner, non reliance on the report cannot be a ground for setting aside the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. In our view, the Scrutiny Committee has properly evaluated the evidence adduced before it. On preponderance of probability it came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that he belongs to Bhope Tribe. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee which is based on appreciation of evidence and on facts. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence except in case of perversity. No perversity in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee has been pointed out.

8. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Division Bench in Aniket v. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Writ Petition No. 4446 of 2003 decided on 27-11-2003 (Coram : A.P. Shah and A.B. Naik, JJ). In para No. 13 of the said decision the Division Bench has observed that the tribe claim of the petitioner's close blood relatives therein was validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the validity certificate in their favour had been issued. The fact that the blood relations of the petitioner therein were of Bhope Tribe and their tribe claim had been validated by the Committee was a very strong circumstance and relying thereon the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner therein belonged to Bhope Tribe. This is not so in the present case. In our view, the said case does not lay down the law that all Brahmins and Marathas are "Bhope". That would be quite contrary to the common sense. The decision of the Division Bench cited (supra) does not assist the petitioner in any way.

9. In the circumstances the petition is sans merit, and is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.