Varsha D/O Madhukar Koli, Now ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 157 Bom

     WP1724.15 (J).odt                              1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                    
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO.1724 OF 2015


     Varsha d/o Madhukar Koli,
     Now Varsha Siddharth Bhagat,




                                                           
     Aged about 35 years,
     Occupation-Household,
     R/o. At Post-Kondoli,
     Tah. Manora, Distt. Washim.                             ..             Petitioner




                                                  
                              ig    .. Versus ..

     1]      The State of Maharashtra,
             through its Principal Secretary,
                            
             Tribal Development Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

     2]      The Divisional Caste Scrutiny 
             Committee-2, Akola having its
      


             office at Collector Office Premises,
             Administrative Building, 2nd Floor,
   



             Akola, Tahsil and District - Akola,
             through its Member Secretary.                   ..             Respondents





                           ..........
     Shri Anand Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner,
     Ms. Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for the respondents.
                           ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK  AND





                                             A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 29, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the

respondent-Scrutiny Committee, dated 14.10.2014, invalidating the claim of

the petitioner of belonging to Mahar, Scheduled Caste.

The petitioner was desirous of seeking petroleum dealership and,

therefore, she applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of her claim

of belonging to Mahar, Scheduled Caste. The petitioner claims to belong to

Mahar, Scheduled Caste, as her mother, a Mahar by caste, had married a man

who belonged to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. As the petitioner was born

on 23.1.1978 and her father had expired in the year 1986 and she was looked

after and brought up by her mother, the petitioner claims to belong to Mahar,

Scheduled Caste. Along with the documents, the petitioner submitted the

caste validity certificate issued by the Committee in favour of her real brother

and sister. The Scrutiny Committee, however, by the impugned order, dated

14.10.2014 rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner did not produce enough material to show that she was brought up

by her mother in the absence of her father, since her childhood.

Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

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

material to show that the petitioner was brought up only by her mother since

the year 1986. It is stated that the petitioner was born in the year 1978 and

the father of the petitioner expired in the year 1986. It is stated that it is

apparent that the petitioner was looked after and brought up by her mother,

who belongs to Mahar, Scheduled Caste, after the death of her father. It is

stated that despite an opportunity, the petitioner was not able to remain

present before the Scrutiny Committee and produce the relevant material for

showing that she lived only with a mother from 1986 and was brought up

exclusively by her mother. It is stated that since the caste validity certificates

have been granted in favour of the real sister and brother of the petitioner and

it is held that they belong to Mahar, Scheduled Caste, a similar certificate

needs to be issued in favour of the petitioner also. It is stated that, in the

circumstances of the case, by taking a lenient view in the matter, the claim of

the petitioner needs to be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee, so that the

petitioner can produce the relevant material to show that she was brought up

by her mother. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 400 (Rameshbhai

Dabhai Naika .vs. State of Gujarat and others) and specially paragraphs 54 and

55 thereof to substantiate his submission.

Ms. T. Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing

on behalf of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, stated that no fault can be

found with the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to Mahar, Scheduled Caste. It is stated that, in view of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to herein above, it would

be open for a claimant to show he or she was brought up by the mother who

belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and not by the father who

belongs to a forward caste. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce

any material before the Scrutiny Committee to show that the petitioner was

brought up exclusively by her mother since her childhood. It is stated that in

the absence of any material to prove the said fact, the Scrutiny Committee has

rightly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that an

opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner, in the circumstances of the

case, though it cannot be said that the petitioner was not offered any

opportunity by the Scrutiny Committee to prove that she was brought up by

her mother since her childhood. Though the Scrutiny Committee had granted

opportunity to the petitioner to produce relevant material and remain present

before the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner could not remain present before

the Scrutiny Committee and the matter was looked after by the husband of the

petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was brought up by her mother and not

by her father during her childhood was within the special knowledge of the

petitioner and in this background, an opportunity needs to be granted to the

petitioner to furnish the relevant material before the Scrutiny Committee as

the real brother and sister of the petitioner have been granted caste validity

certificates, of belonging to Mahar, Scheduled Caste. On a reading of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 400, we

find that it would be open for a claimant to lead evidence before the Scrutiny

Committee that he or she was brought up by the mother who belongs to

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, since the childhood. In the peculiar

circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the

impugned order and remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for

deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed

and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a

denovo enquiry in the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes

to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 14.3.2016 so that

issuance of notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with. The caste claim

of the petitioner should be decided by the Scrutiny Committee as early as

possible and positively within a period of nine months from the date of

appearance of the petitioner before the Committee.

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

costs.

                              JUDGE                                              JUDGE
                            
     Gulande