Mohan Babli Ransing vs State Of Maharshtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2395 Bom

                                             1/7                           wp-7320-09.doc

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                                               
                                WRIT PETITION NO.7320 OF 2009

                                             ...




                                                       
    Mohan Babli Ransing
    Adult, residing at village: Pinguli,
    Taluka:Kudal,
    District: Sindhudurg                                        ...Petitioner




                                                      
            v/s.

    1.State of Maharashtra
    through its Secretary,




                                              
    Tribal Development Department
    Mantralaya, Mumbai-32            
    2.Schedule Tribe Certificate
    Scrutiny Committee
                                    
    3.Executive Magistrate,
    Kudal, District: Sindhudurg                                 ...Respondents
                                             ...
        


    Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner.
    Mr.V.N.Sagare, AGP for State-Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
     



                                        ...

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

DATED: 6 MAY 2016

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

By this Petition the Petitioner has challenged order dated 23

December 2008 passed by Respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee,

whereby the caste validity certificate dated 19 September 1983 issued to

Uday P. Kambli

2/7 wp-7320-09.doc

the Petitioner was declared to be invalid and the claim of the Petitioner as

belonging to "Thakar-Schedule Tribe" was dismissed. By order dated 3

April 2003 in Writ Petition No.4005 of 1996 filed by the present Petitioner,

the Division Bench of this Court considering the then existing provisions of

law and the facts including Affidavit dated 10 March 2003, whereby it was

averred and not controverted by anyone that the concerned Caste

Scrutiny Committee had validated the caste claim of the Petitioner's son,

nephew and niece as belong to Thakar-Schedule Tribe and set aside the

order dated 7 December 1995 and directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee

to reconsider the case of the Petitioner.

2. We have noted that those findings in favour of the Petitioner's

paternal side relatives are supported by evidence and material on record

and remained unchallenged. There is no case of alleged fraud or

misrepresentation made and/or proved against the Petitioner. There was

no reason not to consider the case of the Petitioner based upon the Caste

Scrutiny Committee validated certificates issued to the Petitioner's son,

nephew and niece. Such Caste Scrutiny Committee's decisions bind all

other and specifically so far as the parental relatives, who are claiming the

similar caste certificate.

    Uday P. Kambli

                                                 3/7                                wp-7320-09.doc

3. We have gone through the reasonings given by the learned Caste

Scrutiny Committee Members. In spite of the above facts, the rejection of

the caste claim of the Petitioner is contrary to law and the record. There is

no justification and/or reasons given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The learned AGP is also unable to point out any contra material based

upon the Affidavit placed on record on behalf of Respondent No.2, except

stating that there was material suppression of facts. Para 5 of the Affidavit

is relevant, which reads as under:

"5. I say that in para 11(1) of the impugned order dated 23-

12-2008 issued by Respondent No.2-Committee while invalidating caste claim of the Petitioner, it is mentioned that

there is material suppression of facts. The said averment is mentioned for the following main reasons:

(i) Vide Government Resolution dated 21 November 1961

the `Thakar' community from Sindhudurg is mentioned in the

list of Nomadic Tribe at entry No.22.

(ii) Vide Government Resolution dated 2-6-2004 the said entry No.22 was deleted from the list of Nomadic Tribes.

(iii) The`Thakar' community throughout State of Maharashtra is also mentioned at Sr.No.200 in the list of `Other Backward Class'.

(iv) Vide Government Resolution dated 26 July 2000 the said Sr.No.200 was deleted from the list of `Other Backward Class'.

(v) Only thereafter the Petitioner had applied for Schedule Tribe certificate.

Uday P. Kambli

4/7 wp-7320-09.doc

As the above said facts were not mentioned and/or disclosed by the Petitioner while applying for the Caste Validity

Certificate, in the said impugned order dated 23-12-2008 it is mentioned that there is material suppression of facts."

4. 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

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.

    Uday P. Kambli

                                                   5/7                                wp-7320-09.doc

    5.      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.

6. This is also in the background that those caste certificates were

issued prior to enactment of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, De-not6ified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),Nomadic Tribes,

Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. We are,

therefore, inclined to observe that whole action of Respondent No.2 of

rejecting the caste claim and passing the impugned order is unjust and

contrary to law. This also in the background that this Court in many

judgments followed the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in

Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee No.1 & ors.1 , wherein it is held that if the kith and kin of a

candidate is already granted validity certificate, such candidate should

also be granted validity certificate.

    1 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401




    Uday P. Kambli

                                                   6/7                                 wp-7320-09.doc

7. In this case, as recorded, the Petitioner, whose son has already

granted validity certificate, is required now to validate his caste claim of

1983. The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee denying the same is

contrary to the judgment of this Court in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra)

and also innumerable judgments of this Court following the same.

8. We have also observed by referring to various judgments on similar

issue in earlier decision Sanjay Bajirao More and anr. v/s. State of

Maharashtra and ors.2 as follows:

"The State Government, in our view, required to take steps against such Scrutiny Committee and/or officers who are passing

such orders by overlooking the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and this courts directly on the issues after taking into consideration the relatives' caste validity certificates. Appropriate

circular and/or direction is required to be issued in this regard so

that it will save time and energy of every one including of Courts."

9. Therefore, in view of above position of law and admitted facts on

record, we are of the view that the case is made out by the Petitioner for

the reliefs so sought. Therefore, the Petition is required to be allowed.

Hence, the following order:-

    2 2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 822




    Uday P. Kambli

                                                  7/7                               wp-7320-09.doc

                                             ORDER

(i) The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which

reads as under:

(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 23 December 2008 passed by Respondent No.2-

Committee, with further direction to the said Committee

to issue Caste Validity Certificate in respect of the caste

certificate dated 19-9-1983 issued by the Competent

Authority of jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioner.

(ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

(iii) In view of above, all consequences to follow.

    (A.A.SAYED, J.)                                       (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)






    Uday P. Kambli