Jahangir Gani Patekari vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 952 Bom

    Dixit
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                     
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2013




                                                             
            Jahangir Gani Patekari                                         ]
            Age : 40 years, Occ.: Business,                                ]
            R/of Jawaharnagar, Ichalkaranji,                               ]




                                                            
            Dist. Kolhapur.                                                ] .... Petitioner
                         Versus
            1. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2,                   ]
               Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Social Justice                       ]




                                                  
               Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Vichare Maal, Kolhapur.                  ]
                                        ig                                 ]
            2. District Collector, Kolhapur,                               ]
               Swaraj Bhavan, Nagala Park, Kolhapur.                       ]
                                                                           ]
                                      
            3. Ichalkaranji Municipal Council,                             ]
               Ichalkaranji, Rajwada Chowk,                                ]
               Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur.                                     ]
                                                                           ]
            4. Vitthal Pundalik Chopade                                    ]
              


               Aged 36 years, Occu.: Business,                             ]
               R/of 10/437, Vikramnagar, Ichalkaranji,                     ]
           



               Dist. Kolhapur.                                             ] .... Respondents

ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1029 OF 2013

IN WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2013

Vitthal Pundalik Chopade ] Aged - 36 years, Occu.: Business ]

R/of 10/437, Vikramnagar, Ichalkaranji, ] Dist. Kolhapur. ] .... Applicant In the matter between Jahangir Gani Patekari ] .... Petitioner Versus Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2 & Ors. ] .... Respondents

WP-3535-13.doc

AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2014

IN WRIT PETITION NO.3535 OF 2013

Jafar Rasul Mujawar ] Age - 28 years, Occu.: Business ] R/of 3/792, Mujawar-Gali, Gavbhag, ] Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangle, Dist. Kolhapur. ] .... Applicant

In the matter between Jahangir Gani Patekari ] .... Petitioner Versus

Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2 & Ors. ] .... Respondents

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate, i/by Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.G. Sawant, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. T.S. Ingale for Respondent No.3.

Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate, i/by Mr. P.P. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.4 and the Applicant in Civil

Application No.1029 of 2013.

Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Applicant in Civil Application No.309 of 2014.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE &

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

DATE : 29TH MARCH 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of

both the parties.

2. As the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner showing him to be

WP-3535-13.doc

belonging to "BAJIGAR-6 Community", that of OBC Muslim, is invalidated

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 5 th April 2013, being

aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

3. The main and the only plank of submission advanced by learned

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee

had not given any weightage to the Caste Validity Certificate issued by the

Committee in favour of Petitioner's real paternal cousin, namely, Afasar-

Badashaha Badesaheb Pattekari, in the year 2008. It is urged that the

said Caste Validity Certificate of Petitioner's real cousin is discarded

merely by observing that each case has to be decided on its own merits. It

is urged that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not given any reasons as

such for rejecting the Caste Validity Certificate of Petitioner's cousin. It is

urged that, only when the earlier Caste Validity Certificate is obtained by

fraud, it can be discarded and not otherwise. Here in the case there was

no allegation that the Caste Validity Certificate of Petitioner's cousin was

obtained fraudulently or otherwise. In such situation, according to learned

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Caste Scrutiny

Committee to offer valid reasons for rejection of the Petitioner's claim and

hence, according to him, the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee needs to be quashed and set aside.

WP-3535-13.doc

4. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner

has relied upon various authorities, like, in Vitthal P. Chopade Vs. State

of Maharashtra & Ors. (in Civil Writ Petition No.736 of 2012, dated

25th September 2012, Coram : S.A. Bobde and R.G. Ketkar, J.J.);

Varsha Ramsing Dhanavat Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2006 (4)

Mh.L.J. 676); Kumari Kavita D/o. Baliram Wagh Vs. The State of

Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, through its

Secretary & Ors., 2010 (3) ALL MR 97); Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao

Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 685; Nillappa

Mangleshwar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2010 (4)

Bom.C.R. 433; and Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009)

10 SCC 268.

5. Per contra, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for

Respondent No.4 is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has granted the

Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the Petitioner's real cousin, without

holding the vigilance inquiry and without recording any reasons for

granting such Certificate. Therefore, the said Caste Validity Certificate was

not rightly relied upon by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, while deciding

the claim of the Petitioner. It is urged that the impugned order contains

valid reasons on which the claim of the Petitioner is denied.

WP-3535-13.doc

6. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.4 has also relied

upon the various authorities including that of Kumari Madhuri Patil and

Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.,

(1994) 6 SCC 241 and others.

7. In the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), which is relied upon by both

the learned Senior Counsels, the Supreme Court has laid down various

guidelines for verification of Caste Certificate by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, which are subsequently incorporated under the provisions of

Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes

(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste

Certificate Act, 2000. As per the said procedure, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee is required to call for the Report of the Vigilance Cell.

8. As the claim of the Petitioner in this case is based entirely on the

Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of his real paternal cousin

Afasar-Badashaha Badesaheb Pattekari, it becomes necessary to know

whether the said procedure was followed and complied with when the

Caste Validity Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner's cousin.

WP-3535-13.doc

For that purpose, learned A.G.P. was directed to procure the record of the

caste scrutiny case in respect of Petitioner's cousin Afasar-Badashaha

Badesaheb Pattekari. The said record is produced and it reveals that,

though an endorsement is appearing therein that Caste Validity Certificate

was issued on the basis of the Report of the Vigilance Cell, the record

does not contain the Report of the Vigilance Cell. A statement is also

made at the bar by learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.4 Mr. A.Y.

Sakhare that, when the application under Right to Information Act, 2005,

was made for the copy of the Vigilance Cell Report, it was informed that

the said Report is not available in the record. Hence, it necessarily follows

that the requisite statutory compliance, that of, taking into consideration

the Report of the Vigilance Cell, was not made when the Caste Validity

Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner's cousin Afasar-

Badashaha Badesaheb Pattekari.

9. Moreover, the perusal of the said Certificate also does not disclose

the reasons. Though learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner has submitted

that requirement of recording reasons is applicable only when claim of

Caste Validity Certificate is rejected, we are not inclined to accept the said

submission as giving of reasons is a mandatory requirement, even so as

to follow the principles of natural justice and it is one of the fundamentals

WP-3535-13.doc

to good administration. Therefore, as held by our own High Court in the

case of Neha Vinayak Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Civil

Writ Petition No.5632 of 2013, order dated 4th December 2014 passed by

the Division Bench of A.S. Oka & A.S. Gadkari, J.J.), when there are no

reasons recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and there is no

application of mind reflected in the order, then such Caste Validity

Certificate alone cannot be a basis for issuing Caste Certificate in favour

of the Petitioner.

10. As held by our own High Court in the case of Ankush Balaji Lad

Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2002 (6) Bom.C.R. 201, relied upon by

learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.4, though the Caste

Certificate issued to a person is relevant while considering a claim made

by his relative, that may not be conclusive in every case. If the Certificate

is issued without obtaining Report of Vigilance Cell or in breach of the

Supreme Court Guidelines laid down in the matter of Madhuri Patil

(Supra), much probative value cannot be attached to such Certificate.

11. In the instant case, therefore, there is no evidence proving that the

Report of Vigilance Cell was called for when Caste Validity Certificate was

issued in favour of Petitioner's cousin. Moreover, as the order granting

WP-3535-13.doc

Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner's cousin - Afasar-Badashaha

Badesaheb Pattekari, does not disclose any reasons for such order.

Hence, it has to be held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in the present

case, has rightly refused to place reliance on the said Certificate and

considered Petitioner's case independently on its own merits.

12. As regards the second contention of learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner that the Committee has not given any reasons for refusing to

place reliance on the Certificate of his cousin, this contention also cannot

be accepted as the impugned order clearly reflects that the Committee

has considered the Certificate of Petitioner's cousin and also all other

evidence produced by the Petitioner and thereafter invalidated his Caste

Certificate.

13. In our considered opinion, therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of

merits and hence stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

14. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1029 of 2013 and Civil

Application No.309 of 2014 pending in the Petition do not survive and the

same stand disposed of accordingly.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

WP-3535-13.doc