Rupesh Nandkishore Varma vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5025 Bom

                                                                                                   wp.1633.06

                                                        1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1633/2006

*        Rupesh  s/o Nandkishore Varma 
         Aged about  22 years, occu: Student 
         R/o Malkapur, Tah.Malkapur 
         Dist. Buldana.                                                                 ..PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

1)       Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee 
         Amravati Division, Amravati. 

2)       State of Maharashtra
         Through its Secretary 
         Social Justice & Empowerment Department 
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.                     ..RESPONDENTS
                                                                 . 

...................................................................................................................
                        Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Adv. for the  petitioner
          Mr. Geeta Tiwari,  Asst. Government Pleader for respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 CORAM :  R.K. DESHPANDE &
                                                                  MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

                                                 DATED :    27       th
                                                                        July, 2017
                                                                                  

ORAL JUDGMENT:  (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

                   This     petition   challenges   the   order     dated   24.08.2004 

passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division,

Amravati, invalidating the claim of the petitioner for 'Sonar' OBC

category.

wp.1633.06

2. With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have gone

through the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee

takes into consideration several documents in which there is a prefix

'Marwadi' to caste 'Sonar' contained in the documents. Shri Bhandarkar,

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the

Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ku. Neha d/o

Ballabhdas Gahalot vs. The Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee

and others reported in 2006 (3) All MR 175, in which it is held that

the prefix 'Marwadi' to the word 'Nai' does not make the petitioner

ineligible for validating her caste claim. It holds that it indicates the

geographical region to which the petitioner's family belonged.

3. Merely because there is a prefix 'Marwadi' to the caste

'Sonar' shown in the documents, by itself, is not enough to invalidate

the claim. From the order impugned, we do not find that the Committee

has applied affinity test to find out as to whether the petitioner satisfies

the traits, characteristics, customs and other ethnic linkages with 'Sonar'

recognized OBC category. The petitioner has also placed on record the

validity certificate issued in the name of one Vishal Ramkaram Varma.

There is no finding as to the relationship of the petitioner with such

wp.1633.06

candidate in whose favour the caste validity certificate has been issued.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, we allow this Writ Petition

and quash and set aside the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the

Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, remand the matter back

to the said Committee for decision afresh in accordance with law, by

following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Rules. The

petitioner shall be at liberty to place any other documents before the

Committee in support of his claim.

5. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 11th th

September, 2017. The Committee to decide the claim within a period of

six months thereafter. No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties.

6. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as

to costs.

                         JUDGE                             JUDGE

sahare