Narayan Narhari Mardhekar vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1721 Bom

                                        (1)                              wp2668.12




                                                                         
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                 
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2668 OF 2012

    Shri Narayan Narhari Mardhekar                        ..       Petitioner




                                                
    Age. 57 years, Occ. Service,
    R/o. Behind ITI,
    Circus Ground (East),
    Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.




                                        
                                        Versus

    1.    The State of Maharashtra 
                                  
          Department of Cultural Affairs &
                                                          ..       Respondents

          Social Justice, Mantralaya,
                                 
          Mumbai-32. Through its Secretary.

    2.    The Divisional Caste Certificate 
          Scrutiny Committee 1 (Social Welfare),
          Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
       


          Through its Member Secretary.
    



    3.    The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
          Beed.

    4.    The Executive Engineer,





          Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
          Development Corporation, Majalgaon
          Project Division, Kesapuri Vasahat,
          Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.





    Mr.Madhur   A.   Golegaonkar   h/f.   Mr.   A.S.   Golegaonkar, 
    Advocate for the petitioner.
    Mr.P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent/State.

                                        CORAM :  A.V.NIRGUDE &
                                                 V.L. ACHLIYA,JJ.

DATED : 21.04.2016

(2) wp2668.12

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for

the parties.

2. This petition challenges judgment and order

dated 27.12.2011 passed by respondent No.2 holding that

the petitioner could not prove his caste claim. The

petitioner's claim was based on various documents which

includes two old documents. We will deal with these

documents one by one. First document is Pahanipatra of

1955-56, in which it is indicated that one Pralhad Mahadu

was a Sali by caste. The petitioner's case is that

Pralhad Mahadu Sali was his biological grand-father.

Second document is of 1942 in which petitioner's grand-

uncle one Manik Pralhad was shown to be belonging to Sali

community. The vigilance report did not indicate that

these documents were forged. The petitioner also amply

proved that he was adopted by his mother's family. In

(3) wp2668.12

addition to this, the petitioner also relied on validity

certificate issued to his two brothers. The documents of

post 1967 also support the claim of the petitioner. The

Committee rejected the claim on the ground that the

persons referred above as Pralhad Mahadu Sali and Manik

Pralhad Tawal were not proved to be relatives of the

petitioner and the petitioner has failed to produce

documents prior to 1967 and so also not produced the

evidence on the basis of which validity certificate

issued to brother and cousin of the petitioner. This

conclusion of the Committee apparently perverse and

contrary to evidence placed on record. There is ample

material on record to indicate that Pralhad Mahadu and

Manik were biological grand-father and grand-uncle of the

petitioner. There is no contra evidence on this fact.

The documentary evidence placed on record is more than

sufficient to establish the caste claim of the

petitioner. The reasons and findings recorded by the

Committee are based upon improper appreciation of

documentary evidence placed on record and are perverse.

(4) wp2668.12

The Committee's decision not to validate the caste of the

petitioner was thus erroneous.

3. In view of above, we allow the petition. The

impugned order of the committee is set aside. The

Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to

the petitioner as per his request.

4. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

[V.L. ACHLIYA,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]

snk/2016/APR16/wp2668.12