Shri. Sachin Shripati Patil ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5176 Bom

                                           1                  WP.5698/2016

    mnm

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                          
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                  
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2016


    Sachin Shripati Patil (Mahkavekar)




                                                 
    Age : Adult, Occ. Social Service,
    R/o - 741/2, Shri Krishna Colony,
    Sambhajinagar, District : Kolhapur                    .. Petitioner




                                              
           Vs.

    1.     State of Maharashtra 
                                    
           Urban Development Department,
           Mantralaya, Mumbai. 
                                   
    2.     Divisional Caste Certificate
           Scrutiny Committee No. 2,
           Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar
             


           2nd floor, Vichare Mal, 
           District : Kolhapur.
          



    3.     Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.
           KMC Building,





           'C' Ward, Bhausingji Road,
           Kolhapur - 416001.]

    4.     The Sub Division Officer,
            Tal - Karveer, District: Kolhapur.





    5.    Shri. R.D. Patil
          Age: Adult, Occ: Nil,
          Residing at: CTS No.1128,
          "B" Ward, Mangalwarpeth,
          District: Kolhapur                     ...Respondents




           ::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016           ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:09:46 :::
                                                  2                        WP.5698/2016


    Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade,
    Advocates for the Petitioner 




                                                                                      
    Mr.A.B.Vagyani,   Government   Pleader   a/w   Ms.   M.P.   Thakur,   AGP 
    a/w Ms.Tintina Hazarika, AGP for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 




                                                             
    Mr. G.S. Godbole, Advocate i/b. Patil Rakesh Sharad, 
    Advocate for the Respondent No.5
    Mr.A.M. Adgule, for Respondent No.3




                                                            
                                 CORAM : SHANTANU.S.KEMKAR &
                                                M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 4th AUGUST, 2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2016

ORDER: (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)

1. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 9 th May,

2016 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny

Committee No.2, Kolhapur thereby invalidating the caste

claim of the Petitioner as Hindu-Kunbi which is a Scheduled

Caste.

2. The Petitioner is also challenging the consequential

disqualification order dated 9th May, 2016 passed by the

Municipal Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

viz., the Respondent No.3.

3 WP.5698/2016

3. The Petitioner was elected from reserved Ward No.34 as

the Councilor of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The

Petitioner's caste claim was referred for verification to

Respondent No.2 Committee. The Respondent No.2

forwarded the Petitioner's case for local inquiry to the

Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell after conducting the local

inquiry submitted the report which is in favour of the

Petitioner.

4. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner's

Cousin Vaibhav's caste certificate was validated by the Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Bhuvan, Mumbai

Division by an order dated 2nd March, 2015 and declared him

as belonging to the "Kunbi" caste. According to the Petitioner

once a blood relation of the Petitioner has got his caste

certificate validated, then unless the said certificate is

cancelled or the Respondent No.2 Committee comes to the

conclusion that the blood relation of the Petitioner obtained

the caste certificate fraudulently the said certificate has to be

4 WP.5698/2016

accepted and the Petitioner ought to have been granted the

caste validity certificate. The Petitioner relied upon various

decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2376 of 2015, Writ

Petition No. 4224 of 2014, (2010) 6 Mh.L.J. 401 in support of

his proposition, but the Committee did not even refer to the

decision.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

there were several documents on record, which go to show

that he belongs to Hindu-Kunbi and the same have not been

properly appreciated by the Scrutiny Committee. Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that though the

Vigilance Cell Report is in favour of the Petitioner no reasons

have been given by the Respondent No.2 Committee for

discarding the said report.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand

supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

According to the Respondents the Committee has taken into

consideration each and every document and given cogent

5 WP.5698/2016

reasons while discarding the same. According to the

Respondents the findings recorded by the Vigilance

Committee are not binding on the Scrutiny Committee as

Vigilance Cell inquiry is meant only for internal assistance to

the Scrutiny Committee, which can can never be used as

evidence in support of the claim.

7. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent

No.5 has submitted various documents in support of his

submission that the Petitioner does not belong to the Hindu-

Kunbi caste and hence, submitted that the order passed by

the Respondent No.2 does not call for any interference.

8. Having gone through the impugned order we find that

except for the Respondent No.2 mentioning in the order that

it is not in agreement with the Vigilance cell Report there is

nothing to suggest that the reasons are given for the

discarding the report of the Vigilance Cell. Similar issue had

arisen in Writ Petition No. 5699 of 2016 wherein we have

spelt out the necessity for the Committee to give reasons

6 WP.5698/2016

before discarding the Vigilance Report.

9. We find that the Respondent No.2 Committee has not at

all adverted to the report of the Vigilance Cell. We, therefore,

quash and set aside the impugned order and remand the

matter back to respondent No.2 - Committee for a fresh

consideration of the caste claim. The Committee may pass a

fresh order on its own merits after complying with the

provisions of the Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 17 of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward

Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste

Certificate Rules, 2012. The Committee may also take into

consideration cast validity certificate issued to the Petitioner's

cousin Vaibhav and consider the claim of the Petitioner in the

light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401. The Committee

will decide the matter afresh on its own merits in accordance

with law.

                                              7                     WP.5698/2016




                                       O R D E R




                                                                               
                                                       

1. The impugned order dated 3rd May, 2016 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside.

2. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and

after hearing the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from today.

3. The consequential order of disqualification is set aside.

4. No order as to costs.

5. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)