Bombay High Court
Kapil S/O Ashok Solanki vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 20 October, 2012
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Judgment wp2193.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2193/2012.
Kapil s/o Ashok Solanki,
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Nil,
R/o. At Village Kolara, Tah. Chkhli,
Tah. Chkhli, District Buldhana. .... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola
Tahsil and District Akola, through its
Additional Commissioner/Member.
2. Anuradha Engineering College, Chikhli,
Sakegaon Road, Chikhli, Tah. Chkhli,
District Buldhana, through its Principal. .... RESPONDENTS
.
--------------------------
Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N.W. Sambre learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-----------------------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
S.P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 20, 2012.
Judgment wp2193.12
ORAL JUDGEMENT. (Per B.R. GAVAI, J)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Shri N.W. Sambre, learned G.P. for respondent no.1 and
Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. By their
consent the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. The present case is a glaring example of non-application of mind
by the respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner as well as his
real uncle/father's real brother - Eknath Pundlik Solanki had applied for
validity certificate as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" Nomadic Tribes (A). It is
pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 Committee vide its order dated
30.07.2011 has granted validity in favour of petitioner's real uncle (father's
brother) namely Eknath Pundlik Solanki and by the impugned order dated
31.03.2012, the caste claim of petitioner has been invalidated. The reasoning
given in the impugned order is that, the applicant, except submitting the
validity certificate of his close relative, has not submitted any other evidence
showing that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta.
4. We have come across such orders repeatedly. If caste claim of
Judgment wp2193.12
kith and kin of the applicant concerned is validated and such a validity
certificate is produced on record, we fail to understand as to what other
better evidence can be produced by the applicant/claimant before the
committee. Yesterday itself in Writ Petition No.1549/2012, we had come
across such an order, wherein inspite of claim of a close relative having been
validated and in spite of there being vigilance cell report supporting the
claim of the applicant, his/her caste claim was rejected. However, in the
present case, the committee has gone still further. When the vigilance cell
inquiry in respect of petitioner's real uncle and petitioner was conducted
simultaneously, and common report was submitted, the Committee ought to
have given validity in favour of the petitioner also, instead of refusing the
same. We find that this is nothing else but total non-application of mind to
the facts of the case in correct perspective. We find that as on the basis of the
same vigilance cell report, the petitioner's real uncle's claim has been granted
validity, the Committee was not justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner.
5. In the case at hand, though the petitioner has raised a specific
ground i.e. ground No. (C) in the petition, that on the basis of the same
vigilance cell enquiry, the petitioner's real uncle has been granted validity
certificate, the petitioner has been denied the same. There is not even a
whisper about this in the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1.
Judgment wp2193.12
6. In so far as the vigilance cell report is concerned, the report
clearly goes to show that on enquiry, the claim of petitioner has been found
to be valid. In so far as this finding is concerned, the only avertment in the
reply is that the report of vigilance cell is not binding on the committee. No
doubt the report of the vigilance cell is not binding on the Committee,
however, that does not mean that the committee is not even bound to
consider the report of the vigilance cell. If the committee decides to differ
with the observations/findings contained in the report of the vigilance cell,
the least that is expected is to give reasons as to why it decides to differ with
the report and as to why said report is not accepted by it. At the cost of
repetition, we may say that there is not even a whisper in the order in that
regard.
7. At this stage, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader submits
that in the event the order is found unsustainable, the matter may be
remanded to the committee.
8. We find that the course suggested by the learned Government
Pleader would result into nothing but, causing undue hardship to the
petitioner. The Committee has already relied on the vigilance cell report and
had issued validity certificate in favour of petitioner's real uncle and denied
the same to the petitioner, without even considering the vigilance cell report.
We consider that relegating the petitioner again to the committee would not
Judgment wp2193.12
be in the interest of justice. In any case from perusal of the vigilance cell
report we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioner is justified.
9. In the result, Writ Petition is, allowed. The impugned order
dated 31.03.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 Committee is quashed and
set aside. The Committee is directed to issue validity certificate in favour of
the petitioner as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" Nomadic Tribes (A), within a
period of three weeks from today.
Rule is, therefore, made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd
