Bombay High Court
Kum. Ashwini Vilas Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 10 April, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Prs 1 19 wp 28-16-c
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2016
Kum. Ashwini Vilas Chavan
Aged 28 years, residing at,
Post Degaon, Dist. Wai,
District Satara ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1.State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2.Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division,
Pune through its Member Secretary
having its office at 28, Queen's
Garden, Pune- 411 001.
3.Zilla Parishad, Satara through
its Chief Executive Officer,
District Satara.
4.Sub Divisional Officer, Wai,
Sub Division, Dist. Satara. ... Respondents.
---
Mr.Ramchandra Kanu Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.N.C.Walimbe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
---
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE : 10 APRIL 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.) :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
Prs 2 19 wp 28-16-c
2. The Petitioner's claim that she belongs to Thakar- Scheduled
Tribes is rejected by judgment dated 21st October, 2015, by
Respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny (The Committee), therefore, this
Petition.
3. Petitioner's father has been granted certificate of validity
dated 18th May, 2005, by the Committee. This is a part of the
records, the proceedings. However, the same was overlooked. On
the contrary, there are observations against the Petitioner referring
to various other relatives' certificates to hold that her other
relatives have not been granted such caste certificates. It was also
rejected for failure to support the cultural affinity test.
4. Normally, we could have gone into the reasons given by the
Scrutiny Committee in detail, but in the present facts and
circumstances, as the Petitioner's father's certificate of validity
remained intact till this date and as there is no case of fraud and
misrepresentation pointed out or made out from the record and/or
documents placed on record, we see there is no reason to discard
the father's certificate, which goes to the root so far as the
Petitioner's caste claim being the daughter. The caste of a daughter
cannot be different from the father's caste. In view of this all other
adverse reasons have lost its importance.
The Caste and the importance of paternal side caste validity
certificate's claim :
5. It is recorded by the Supreme Court in Amruta Vijay More
Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.1 as under :-
Prs 3 19 wp 28-16-c
"The difference is that in the case of the appellant
in the writ petition filed by him before the High
Court, he has categorically indicated in paragraph
6 that his father had been recognised as a
member of the Thakur Scheduled Tribe and was
granted a validity certificate by the Screening
Committee, Nashik. Similarly, her real brother
had also been granted such a certificate by the
said Screening Committee. Another certificate
was issued by the Screening Committee, Nashik,
dated 15th November, 2000, in favour of her
paternal uncle, Shri Rajendra Bajirao. Validity
certificates had also been issued in favour of three
of her paternal cousins and copies of said
certificates had been annexed to the writ petition.
The decision of the Screening Committee in the
case of the appellant appears to be a decision in
appeal over the earlier decision of the Screening
Committee, which had granted the earlier
certificates."
6. It is observed by the Apex Court in Anita Atmaram Gaikwad
Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2 as under :-
"We must note that all these cases are decided
in the facts of each case. In the present case, in
2 Order dated 16th April, 2013 in Civil Appeal No.3881 of 2013
Prs 4 19 wp 28-16-c
as much as the appellant is having two pre-
Constitution documents and also when her brother
and sister have been given the Community
certificate, which have been validated, we are of
the view that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was
in error in giving the importance to the two
certificates which stated that one of her relatives
was 'Marathi' and the other 'Maratha'. The High
Court has fallen in error in placing reliance on
these two certificates."
7. The Apex Court in Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors.3 has concluded that -
"The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim
of the appellants on the ground that the relatives
of the appellants were not residents of the areas
mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1956 and
further they were not able to give any details of
customs and traditions being observed by the
said community.
In our considered opinion, that is wholly
irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish
that they belong to the community mentioned
at Serial No. 44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of
Act No. 108 of 1976."
3 Order dated 8th March, 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2011
Prs 5 19 wp 28-16-c
8. The law with regard to the importance of Paternal side
relative's caste certificate has been reiterated by the Supreme Court
and by the High Court in may judgments. This Court in Madhuri
Nitin Jadhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 4 has
recorded that -
"The Scrutiny Committee is required to consider
the relation certificates issued, on which reliance
is placed by the applicant/claimant for the same
caste certificate/benefits. It cannot be overlooked
and/or denied merely because those were obtained
prior to the Act and/or without due inquiry
and/or passing the affinity test, unless a case of
fraud and/or misrepresentation is made out.
There is no scope and power given unless
appropriate proceedings initiated to invoke
and/or revoke the certificates and/or validation
orders passed in favour of the relations, based
upon the then provisions available."
9. This Court in Rajashri Prakash Ahire Vs. State of
Maharashtra 5 noted as under -
"We have found from a perusal of the original
record specifically produced before us that the
committee's order is vitiated by total non
application of mind. It is vitiated by an error of
4 2014(4) Bom.C.R.753
5 Order dated 3rd March, 2017 in Writ Petition No.9481 of 2015
Prs 6 19 wp 28-16-c
law apparent on the face of the record and as
pointed out above. The committee's order can be
safely termed as perverse for it ignores and
brushes aside legal and valid evidence. The
documents, which have great evidenciary value,
have not been taken into consideration."
10. This Court in Mohan Babli Ransing Vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors.6 has recorded the role of State and the
authorities in such paternal side relatives' caste certificates and its
importance as under -
"We have also observed by referring to various
judgments on similar issue in earlier decision
Sanjay Bajirao More and anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors. 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 822 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
6 2016(3) ALL MR 837
Prs 7 19 wp 28-16-c
this regard so that it will save time and
energy of every one including of
Courts." (emphasis added)
Conclusion
11. Strikingly, the legal and the constitutional rights, benefits, the
concessions and the relaxation are well recognized. The genuine
cases are required to be concluded so also the ungenuine cases. The
caste claim cases cannot be decided stubbornly by clinging to the
routine and stereo type reasons. Once the committee validate the
caste certificate / claim, it binds not only the claiming person but to
the future generations of the whole family. All the concerned are
bound by the law of binding precedents including the committee.
The facts based caste claims need to be decided keeping in mind
the provisions of law and the Judgments on the connected issues.
The copies of the judgments/orders are required to be placed on
record of the committee by the concerned parties. The committee
to pass the final order promptly so that future and further
consequential action arising out of it be complied with at the
earliest. The committee in no case deny the caste claim by
disregarding the law and the judgments. The scope and power of the
committee is very limited while deciding such issues when there is
no case of fraud or misrepresentation made out from the record. The
judgments so referred above have concluded that the paternal side
relatives' caste validity certificate, unless quashed and set aside,
must be relied upon. The State and/or the concerned authority is
required to issue such circulars as observed in Sanjay Bajirao More
(cited supra), to avoid delay and physical and mental harassment
Prs 8 19 wp 28-16-c
to the concerned persons who are seeking such caste certificates.
This would also avoid unnecessary litigation/conflicts with the State
and the related authorities when it comes to deciding the rights
flowing from the State reservation policy.
12 Therefore, the following order:-
ORDER
(a) The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) i.e.
"Quash and set aside impugned judgment and
order dated 21.10.2015 passed by Respondent
No.2 committee (Exhibit "A" to the writ petition)
with further direction to Respondent No.2
committee to issue Certificate of Validity in
respect of caste certificate dated 7.3.2008 issued
by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner."
(b) Respondent No.2-Committee is directed to issue the validity
certificate within eight weeks.
(c) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)
....
