Adarshkumar S/O. Kemleshwar ... vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1988 Bom

                                               1



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                   
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                           
    Writ Petition No. 1915 of 2016




                                                          
    Petitioner               :      Adarshkumar son of Kemleshwar Wasnik,

                                    aged about 34 years, Occ: service, resident 




                                             
                                    of c/o Sharayu Badgaye, Ram Nagar, 
                                  igLonwahi, Sindewahi,  Dist. Chandrapur

                                    versus
                                
    Respondents              :      1)   Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee

No. 1, Nagpur Division, Administrative Building

No. 2, through Member-Secretary

2) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Chandrapur

Shri I. G. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner

Smt A. R. Kulkarni, Asst. Government Pleader for respondent no. 1

Shri S. P. Giratkar, Advocate for respondent no. 2

Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And

V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 28th April 2016

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Scrutiny Committee dated 5.3.2016 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of

belonging to Mahar Scheduled Caste as the petitioner had not produced the

relevant documents showing that he was permanent resident of Maharashtra

before 1950.

Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on

the ground that the petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity of

producing the documents pertaining to his permanent residence in the State

of Maharashtra before 1950. it is stated that the Scrutiny Committee has

erroneously relied on the documents pertaining to the school record of the

father and grand-father of the petitioner. It is stated that the school record of

the father and the grand-father of the petitioner shows that they were

educated in the school at Khairlanji that is included in the State of Madhya

Pradesh. It is stated that the petitioner was a permanent resident of

Paraswada which is only at a distance of 7 kms from Khairlanji and

Paraswada falls in the State of Maharashtra. It is stated that the petitioner

had, therefore, rightly secured the caste certificate from the Competent

Authority in the State of Maharashtra. It is stated that an opportunity may be

granted to the petitioner to state the aforesaid facts before the Scrutiny

Committee so that the Scrutiny Committee may consider the case of the

petitioner in the light of the said fact.

4. Smt A. R. Kulkarni, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no. 1-Scrutiny Committee supported the order

of the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to

remain present before the Scrutiny Committee, but the petitioner failed to

remain present and did not supply any documents showing the permanent

residence of the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra before 1950. It is

stated that an appropriate order may be passed, in the circumstances of the

case.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that

an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to prove that the

petitioner was a permanent resident of Paratwada before the deemed date.

Since it is the claim of the petitioner that Paraswada is located only at a

distance of 7 kilometers from Khairlanji and Paraswada falls in the State of

Maharashtra and Khairlanji falls in the State of Madhya Pradesh, it would be

necessary to permit the petitioner to bring these facts to the notice of the

Scrutiny Committee. It is possible that a person may travel a distance of 7

kilometers for the purpose of education. The Scrutiny Committee may

consider the claim of the petitioner after granting an opportunity to the

petitioner of being heard and producing the relevant material.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny

Committee is directed to re-decide the caste claim of the petitioner after

granting an opportunity to the petitioner of filing the necessary documents

and/or affidavit in support of his case. The petitioner should cooperate with

the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee may decide the caste claim

of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one year from the

date of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to appear

before the Scrutiny Committee on 26 th May 2016. The petitioner may tender

the necessary documents and/or affidavit before the Scrutiny Committee on

that date or within a short time therefrom. The services of the petitioner are

protected till his caste claim is decided.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

              V. M. DESHPANDE, J                              SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J




    joshi