Subhash Gopal Pandurkar vs 2) The State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 233 Bom

Ladda

                                                                       wp-9011-12.sxw


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                               
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                       
                          WRIT PETITION No. 9011 OF  2012.




                                                      
        Subhash Gopal Pandurkar                             .. Petitioner.

        Age 45 years, occupation Advocate,

        Residing at Pramila Prasad Bhatwadi,




                                              
        Sawantwadi, District Sindhudurg.
                            
              VERSUS
                           
        (1)   The District Caste Certificate
          


        Scrutiny Committee, Sindhudurg                       .. 
       



        District Sindhudurg.

        (2)   The State of Maharashtra                               ..  Respondents.
  




        Mr S. G. Patil i/by Milind Parab & Asso for the Petitioner.

        Mr A.B.Vagyani, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 





                               CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ.

                                 DATED :-     19th OCTOBER, 2012. 



        P.C.:- (PER A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)


                                                                                   1 of 4




                                                                           wp-9011-12.sxw




    1)     Heard counsel for the parties.




                                                                                  
                                                          
    2)     The   argument   of   the   petitioner   that   the   petitioner   belongs   to 

Sonar community, in our opinion, has been rightly negatived by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee on the finding that the petitioner was not

able to establish the fact that he belonged to Sonar caste. On the other

hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner, at best, indicated that he

belonged to Daivadnya Brahmin caste. In the context of that finding,

the argument proceeds that Daivadnya Brahmin and Sonar is synonym;

and for which reason, the caste certificate of the petitioner ought to

have been validated. This argument cannot be entertained considering

the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to place any notification

issued by the Competent Authority specifying that Daivadnya Brahmin

and Sonar castes are synonyms. In the absence of such notification, it is

not open to the Court to assume that these two are synonymous. This

position is well established and no more res integra.

3) The counsel for the petitioner, relying on the observations made

by the Vigilance Cell submits that the observation made therein that

"Sonar" and "Daivadnya Brahmin" are synonyms, was binding on the

Committee and ought to be the basis to treat the petitioner as

belonging to other backward class. Even this argument does not

2 of 4

wp-9011-12.sxw

commend to us. The Vigilance Cell, in the first place, could not have

given such opinion. In any case, that opinion cannot bind on the

Committee. The Committee has rightly discarded the said opinion. In

that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decision of the

Committee.

4) The counsel for the petitioner would then contend that the

petitioner's two sons have been given validity certificates - that they

belong to other backward community, even though they are Daivadnya

Brahmin community. It is for the Committee to consider whether to

initiate any action to cancel the validity certificates so granted to the

sons of the petitioner. That issue will have to be decided on its own

merits, in accordance with law.

5) The counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision

of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshana Subhash

vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1791 of

2004, wherein, although, the Court found that the petitioner therein

belonged to caste "Hindu Daivadnya Brahmin and/or Brahmin",

proceeded to hold that he should be treated as "Sonar Caste".

Exposition in this decision cannot be treated as correct statement of law

and more so in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bharati

3 of 4

wp-9011-12.sxw

Balkrishna Dhongade (2012) 1 SCC 566, which answers the issue.

The writ petition is dismissed.

             (R.Y.GANOO,J)                        (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)




                                                   
    Ladda                




                                         
                            
                           
      
   






                                                                                4 of 4