Bombay High Court
Abbasi Noorifaraz Mohammed ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 17 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 3916.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2012
1. Abbasi Noorifaraz S/o Mohammed Iliyas,
Age : 22 Years, Occu. : Student,
R/o Near Ieedgah Kaman
Infront of Janta Tent Suppliers,
Degloor Naka, Nanded.
2. Abbasi Mohammed Imran Younus,
Age : 29 Years, Occu. : Teacher,
R/o Near Ieedgah Kaman
Infront of Janta Tent Suppliers,
Degloor Naka, Nanded. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No. 2,
Aurangabad Division, Latur.
3. The Principal,
M.G.M. College of Engineering,
Nanded.
4. The Education Officer (Primary),
Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika,
Dadar (East), Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:39 :::
2 wp 3916.12
5. The Head Master,
Deaonar Colony,
Urdu No. 1 Primary School,
Gowandi, Mumbai - 400 043.
6. Swami Ramand Teerth
Marathwada University,
Through its Vice Chancellor,
Nanded. .. Respondents
Smt. A. N. Anasari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V. M. Kagne, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
Shri A. K. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for petitioners submits
that, the Committee while rejecting the validation proceedings in
respect of the caste claim of petitioners as belonging to 'Beldar
Bhatke Jamati Nomadic Tribe has not considered the old
documents on record in its correct perspective. The Mortgage
Deed executed in favour of great grandfather has not been
considered. The said document is of the year, 1939. Pursuant to
3 wp 3916.12
the said document even entry was taken in the records of the
Municipal Council wherein tax was assessed. The copies of the
said documents were also produced before the Committee. The
old documents have got higher probative value. Validity is
granted to the real uncle of the petitioner. Even subsequently
sister of the petitioner is given validity. The school record of
petitioners consistently records the caste as 'Beldar'. This aspect
has not been considered by the authorities in its correct
perspective.
3. Mr. Kagne, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that, validity given to the uncle of the petitioner cannot
be considered as the same was issued in the year, 1994, without
conducting vigilance. The validity subsequently issued in favour
of sister of the petitioner is by suppressing the fact that the
petitioners proposal for validity was already rejected. On the
contrary statement was made that none of the proposal seeking
validation in the family has been rejected. The learned A. G. P.
submits that, even in respect of school record of the relatives of
petitioners, there is interpolation and the same is rightly
considered. The documents of recent period do not inspire
confidence.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for respective parties.
4 wp 3916.12
5. In fact, the petitioners ought to have produced the original
documents before the Committee. The tax receipt, the Mortgage
Deed are in Urdu language. Though the translation was filed,
the same was not attested as a true translation by the person
making translation and the affidavit of the person making the
translation was not filed. In absence of the same naturally, the
Committee could not have relied upon the said translation. The
learned counsel for petitioners states that, original bond executed
in the year 1939 in favour of the great grandfather of the
petitioner and the tax receipts wherein tax was assessed and
charged on the basis of the same bond is available. The same
ought to have been filed before the Committee in original.
6. Considering the fact that, material documents in original
were not filed and the affidavit of the person translating the
documents was also not filed, we are inclined to grant one more
opportunity to the petitioner to place all these documents before
the Committee for its consideration.
7. In light of the above, the impugned judgment and order is
quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the
Committee. The parties shall appear before the Committee on
06th April, 2016. The petitioners are permitted to file additional
documents in original so also the affidavit of the person
translating the documents as true translation. The Committee
5 wp 3916.12
shall thereupon consider the said documents and decide the
proceedings afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law,
after hearing parties concerned.
8. Till the said proceedings are pending, no adverse action be
taken against the petitioner No. 2 who is in service on the ground
that validation proceedings are still pending. The result of the
petitioner No. 1's exam also shall not be withheld on the ground
that validation proceedings are pending. Till the validation
proceedings are decided the petitioners shall not take further
benefit of reservation. Of course the authorities can act in tune
with the judgment of the Committee in validation proceedings.
Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/March 16
