Lukmansha Usmansha vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 813 Bom

                                                        1                        wp6391.11.odt

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO.6391/2011

      Lukmansha Usmansha,
      aged about 24 years, Occ. Agriculture/
      Labour, r/o At Post Kothali, Tah. Motala, 
      Dist. Buldhana.                                             .....PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
    Committee No.2, through its Chairman/
    Secretary, Collectorate Premises,
    Administrative Building, 2nd Floor,
    Akola-444 001.

 2. The Tahsildar,
    Gram Panchayat, Kothali, 
    Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.

 3. The Collector, Buldhana.                                      ...RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri A. P. Chaware, Advocate for petitioner.
 Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for respondents.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  CORAM:-      SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
                                               V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :-

MARCH 17, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner of

belonging to Chapparband, Vimukta Jatis (A).

Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the

petitioner on the ground that the vigilance inquiry was not conducted in

the matters of the caste claim matter as per the directions of the Hon'ble

2 wp6391.11.odt

Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil, reported in AIR 1995 SC

94, as the vigilance cell had not recorded the statements of the family

members and the relatives of the petitioner and the research officer was

also not associated with the vigilance cell. It is stated that since the

mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not followed

while conducting the vigilance inquiry, the impugned order is liable to

be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the scrutiny

committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance

with law.

Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee states that it appears

from the vigilance report that though the petitioner's statement is

recorded and the statements of the neighbours, police patil and

sarpanch are recorded by the vigilance committee, the statements of the

family members or the relatives of the petitioner are not recorded. It is

also fairly admitted that it does not appear from the perusal of the copy

of the vigilance cell report that the research officer was associated with

the vigilance cell while conducting the inquiry.

On a perusal of the vigilance report, it appears that the

mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Madhuri Patil (supra) were not followed by the vigilance cell while

conducting the inquiry. It is apparent from the statements of the

neighbours that the family of the petitioner was residing in the

3 wp6391.11.odt

neighbourhood and if that is so, it was incumbent on the part of the

vigilance cell to have recorded the statements of the family members

and near relatives of the petitioner while conducting the inquiry. Also,

a research officer ought to have been associated with the vigilance cell

while conducting the inquiry. However, since this was not done and the

mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not followed,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to

be remanded to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision on merits,

after conducting the vigilance inquiry.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The

matter is remitted to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim

of the petitioner afresh on merits, in accordance with law within a

period of 9 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before

the committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the

committee on 03.04.2017 so that the service of notice on the petitioner

could be dispensed with.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as

to costs.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

kahale