Bombay High Court
Abhilash Hasrath Savale vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 7 June, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1/5
WP.2692-2012
Dond
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2692 OF 2012
Abhilash Hasrath Savale ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee'
Konkan Division.
3. Maharashtra State Board Transport Corporation
4. Sub Divisional Officers, Ulhasnagar
Sub-Division. ...Respondents.
ig -----
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w C.K. Bhangoji and Tanaji Jadhav for Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Mr. C.M. Lokesh for Respondent No.3.
-----
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE: 7 JUNE 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.):-
1. The Petitioner has filed this petition thereby challenging the
impugned Order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee (Respondent
No.2) dated 19 January 2012 whereby his caste claim of "Tokare Koli"
Scheduled Tribe, has been rejected though there are validity certificate
issued by the same Caste Scrutiny Committee, in favour of Petitioner's
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:58:57 :::
2/5
WP.2692-2012
cousin namely Ganesh A. Sawale dated 06.08.2005 and Rajesh A. Sawale
dated 30.04.2008 (sons of real uncle). Both these certificates are part of
record, show that the first cousins (paternal side) of the Petitioner have
been granted the caste validity certificate being belong to "Tokare Koli"
Scheduled Tribe.
2. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent and/or
any Authority have challenged and/or tested the validity of those
certificates at relevant time and till this date though time was sought for the
same. Last affidavit which is placed on record dated 15 June 2012 filed by
the State Government only shows their intention to challenge the same.
This Court by an Order dated 29.10.2012 therefore directed the State
Government to file affidavit as to why those certificates were accepted and
acted upon. There is no such affidavit filed on record.
3. Even otherwise considering the Judgment of the Supreme
Court including Judgment passed by this Court in the case of (1) Apporva
Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.
reported in 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401 and (2) Sanjay Bajirao More Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 2015(6) Mh. L.J. 822, and other similar reportable of
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:58:57 :::
3/5
WP.2692-2012
this Court including Mohan Babli Ransing Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. in Writ Petition No.7320 of 2009 dated 6 May 2016, whereby we have
accepted the similar contention so far as grant of validity certificates to the
paternal side relatives and its effect on the other relative like Petitioners
who rely upon the same. This is also in the background that there is no case
of fraud and/or misrepresentation made out and/or proved. We are inclined
to observe if any case of fraud or misrepresentation is made out by
sufficient material and if it is proved, the Respondents are at liberty to
initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law against the
concerned parties.
4. In the present case we are inclined to observe that in case such
challenge by the State Government if accepted and/or sustained in favour
of the Petitioner's cousins or the Petitioner, they are free to initiate
proceeding in accordance with law.
It is therefore clear that in view of the Judgment so referred
above and even otherwise considering the law that the paternal side
relatives certificates once granted, the other relatives similarly situated are
also entitled for the similar benefit including caste validity certificate
unless case of fraud or misrepresentation is made out.
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 23:58:57 :::
4/5
WP.2692-2012
5. The learned Tribunal, in our view, therefore though proceeded
to deal with the merits of the matter, but failed to take note of the
Judgments of this Court and so also the provisions so referred above.
Therefore in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay we are
inclined to allow the present petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
However, this is subject to liberty in case the caste validity certificate of the
Petitioner and of the cousins are declared bad in law on the ground of fraud
or misrepresentation, the State Government is at liberty to initiate the
proceeding in accordance with law.
ORDER
6. (i) The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b). The prayer clauses (a) and (b) so granted read as under:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of
certiorari and/or any other writ, order or Direction on in the
nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 19-1-2012 passed by the Respondent
No.2 committee with further direction to Respondent No.2
committee to issue certificate of validity in respect of caste
certificate dated 23-7-2009 issued by the Respondent No.4
competent authority.
WP.2692-2012
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that
the caste certificate dated 23-7-2009 issued by the Respondent
No.4 competent authority in favour of the petitioner is legal,
valid and subsisting."
(ii) No costs.
(A.S. GADKARI,J.) ig (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
