Bharat Gulabsingh Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2391 Bom

                                                                     54-16-WP-Jt.doc




                                                                                
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                        
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2016


     Bharat Gulabsingh Thakur                                ...Petitioner




                                                       
            Versus
     State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,             ...Respondents
     Tribal Development Department & Anr.
                                      ----------
     Mr.   Vikram   Chavan,   and   Ms.   Shital   Thakur   @   Chavan,   for   the 




                                           
     Petitioner.
     Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP, for Respondents No. 1 & 2 State.
                              ig      ----------

                                    CORAM :       ANOOP V. MOHTA &
                            
                                                  A.A. SAYED, JJ.

     CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON  :  May 04, 2016
     PRONOUNCED ON           :  May 06, 2016
      


     JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.) :

Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

parties.

1. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 7th October 2010, thereby

invalidated caste certificate dated 17th December 1997 and thereby

denied the caste claim belonging to Thakur - Scheduled Tribe, though

relatives of the Petitioner of paternal side based upon the provisions,

in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, were granted the

Sharayu. 1/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

caste validity certificate as prayed.

2. The Petition is filed on 30th April 2014. The

Respondents resisted the same by Reply dated 16th March 2016. The

matter listed for final disposal. In view of the submissions made by

the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that this bench in

number of judgments have granted the order based upon the

paternal side relatives certificate in same and similar judgments. Two

of the judgments are also part of the record.

3. After going through the averments and the documents so

placed on record by the Petitioner, Reply Affidavit filed by the

Respondents and the reason so given by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee. We have found that there are no allegations of any fraud

and/or misrepresentation against the Petitioner. There are no

allegations that the earlier caste validity certificates granted to the

relatives of the Petitioner, based upon then legal position was bad in

law because of any misrepresentation and/or fraud. There is nothing

on record to show that the Respondents at any point of time initiated

any proceedings to cancel the caste certificate granted to the paternal

side relatives of the Petitioner. All those validity certificates have been

acted upon by the concerned. Merely because a different view is

Sharayu. 2/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

possible cannot be a reason to deny the claim of Petitioner based

upon the other validity certificate of his paternal side relatives issued

by the Competent Caste Scrutiny Committee at the relevant time.

4. It is relevant to note the paragraph 4 of the Affidavit

filed by Respondent No. 2, which reads thus :-

"I say that in the year 2001, the Scheduled

Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik issued caste

validity certificate to the relatives of the Petitioner

namely Ashish Prakash Bhamre and Mrudula Prakash

Bhamre on the basis of the legal position prevailing at

that time and pursuant to the order passed by this

Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 2746 of 1998, 5454

of 1998 and 856 and 1998. I say that when the orders

were passed in the said Writ Petitions, the 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,

has not come into force.

     Sharayu.                                                                                  3/9





                                                                         54-16-WP-Jt.doc

I further say that apart from Scheduled Tribe,

a surname "Thakur" is also listed amongst Nomadic

Tribe and forward caste. At the time of hearing before

the Respondent No. 2 Committee, the Petitioner could

not establish affinity towards 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe

and the said fact has also been mentioned in the

statement made before the Vigilance Cell. In this regard I

rely on para 8 of the impugned order dated 7.10.2010

passed by the Respondent No. 2 Committee.

5. The 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, is in force since 18-10-

2001. Rules are also framed thereunder. The Competent Authority is

required to follow the same. The importance is also given to the

affinity test and the report of the Vigilance Cell. There was no

challenge raised at any point of time to the Petitioner's relatives caste

certificate as the same was issued by the Competent Authority in

pursuance to the order passed by this Court and as there is no case of

any fraud and/or misrepresentation. Merely because another view is

Sharayu. 4/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

possible that itself in our view cannot be reason to deny the caste

claim of the Petitioner.

6. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 in case of

Madhuri Nitin Jadhav (supra) in paragraphs 35 and 36 based upon

the Supreme Court judgment and the other judgment of this Court

(Anoop V. Mohta & A.A. Sayed, JJ) has observed as under :-

"35. In the instant case, the Caste Screening Committee

had clearly found the father, paternal uncle, brother

and paternal cousins of the appellant to belong to

the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The subsequent decision

of the Screening committee solely on the basis of an

Affinity Test, in our view, does not stand scrutiny.

36. We have also in Sanjay Pralhad Pardeshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 6800 of 2013, by

order dated 18 February 2014, by referring to the

earlier judgments of this Court, granted the relief by

observing as under:

"4. In view of no contra material on record, the

certificate, in our view, just cannot be overlooked

Sharayu. 5/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

basically when there is no finding of fraud and/or

misrepresentation. It is difficult to accept the reason

so provided by overlooking the above position, while

rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and also in view

of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court

(Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.)1. The

Division Bench of this Court, (Anoop V. Mohta and

Z.A. Haq, JJ) has also taken a view in Vaishali

Chatarsingh Ingale (Thakur) Vs. Committee for

Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati

& Ors.2 and noted in paragraph No.5 as under:

5......

"Where a committee has given a finding about the

validity of the caste of a candidate another

committee ought not to refuse the same status to a

blood relative who applies. A merely different view of

the same facts would not entitle the committee

dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject

1 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 2 2013(6) Mh.L.J.251 Sharayu. 6/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

it........"

The Same view is also taken by another Bench of this

Court in Mayur S/o. Shamrao Nannaware Vs.

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Gadchiroli.3 "

7. This Court recently in similar matter has observed as

under :-

"The above submissions/contentions in no way

persuade us to overlook the admitted position on record

as regards the grant of caste validity certificates to the

Petitioner's son, nephew and niece by following due

procedure of law at the relevant time. The Petitioner is

entitled for the certificate based upon same

circumstances and situation as applied earlier also. The

Respondent did not refer to earlier decisions of the Caste

Scrutiny Committees in some of Petitioner's relatives.

There is nothing on record and/or pointed out that the

Government has taken any steps and/or instructed to

take steps to revoke and/or cancel those caste certificates

3 2014(1) Mh.L.J.437 Sharayu. 7/9

54-16-WP-Jt.doc

issued to the Petitioner's son, nephew and niece. Mere

allegation of suppression of fact by the Scrutiny

Committee are not sufficient. The above averments, even

if made, are required to be proved in accordance with

law. The situation is, in the present case that the

Petitioner's son, nephew and niece are treated in the

Society being belong to Thakar-Schedule Tribe, whereas

the Petitioner-father/uncle, who had no occasion to

move for such caste validity certificate by the impugned

order, being treated as not belonging to Thakar-Schedule

Tribe. This is, in our view, unacceptable position.

The Respondents, if are so serious about the

stated misrepresentation, ought to have taken steps at

the earliest. Respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee

cannot sit over the decisions as the Appellate Authority,

and/or even against the observations of this High Court,

by overlooking the validated caste certificates of the

Petitioner's son, nephew and niece. The whole procedure

is unjust and impermissible and contrary to law."

     Sharayu.                                                                                   8/9





                                                                           54-16-WP-Jt.doc




                                                                                     

8. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and for the

reasons so recorded, the Petition is required to be allowed. Hence,

the following order is passed:-

(i) Rule made absolute, in terms of prayer clause (b),

which read thus :-

"(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ

of Certiorari and/or any order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting

aside the impugned order dated 7th October 2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Committee, Exhibit "F" with further direction

to the said Committee to issue Caste Validity

Certificates in respect of the cast certificate dated 17.12.1997 issued by the respondent no. 3, the competent authority of jurisdiction,

in favour of the petitioner."

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

             [A.A. SAYED, J.]                         [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]




     Sharayu.                                                                                9/9