Sharada Ramesh Darade vs The President, And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 8990 Bom

                                                           921.WP.3575.11.doc

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO.  3575 OF 2011


 Sharada Ramesh Darade
 Age: 29 years, Occ.: Agriculture
 Residing at Village Khambale,
 Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik.                     ...   Petitioner
              V/s.
 1 The President, Divisional Caste
    Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1,
    Nashik Division, Nashik.

 2 The Collector,
   Nashik.

 3 The State of Maharashtra

 4 Shri Bhausaheb Nagu Andhale
   Residing at Khambale
   (Via - Nadurshingote)
   Tal-Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.                         ...   Respondents

                               
 Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
 Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.


                                     CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                               MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                                     DATE    :  23rd NOVEMBER, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] 


 1                  Taken out from final hearing board.



 waghmare/-                                 1/7




                                                             921.WP.3575.11.doc

 2                 By   this   Petition,   the   Petitioner   has   challenged 

impugned order dated 21.12.2010 passed by Respondent No.1-The

President, Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1,

Nashik Division, Nashik (for short the "Scrutiny Committee"),

thereby cancelled/revoked the caste validity certificate issued by the

said Committee itself dated 18.05.2010, and further observed that

the Petitioner has committed an offence as contemplated under

Section 11(1)(a)(b) of The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukata Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act,

2001 (for short "the Act"), though it is observed that the Petitioner

belongs to the claimed community.

3 The Petitioner belongs to Hindu Vanjari Community

(NT-30) which is recognized as a nomadic Tribe-(D) within the

State of Maharashtra. On 11.05.1999, the Petitioner was married

with Ramesh Ramchandra Darade and on 15.07.2010 her name was

included in the ration card. On 17.05.2010, the Petitioner had filed

affidavit before the concerned authority for caste certificate. On

08.06.2010 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sinnar District Nashik, has

waghmare/- 2/7

921.WP.3575.11.doc

issued Caste Certificate to the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had

issued Caste Validity Certificate bearing No.15020 on 18.5.2010.

Thereafter, the Petitioner had contested the election and got

elected.

4 On 21.07.2010, Bhausaheb Nagu Andhale had lodged a

complaint with Respondent No.1 challenging the grant of Caste

Validity Certificate, which was sent to the Vigilance Squad for

enquiry. On 06.10.2010 an enquiry report was sent to Respondent

No.1. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner as to why

her Caste Validity Certificate should not be cancelled. On

21.12.2010, on the basis of the report of Vigilance Squad

Respondent No.1, has cancelled the Caste Validity Certificate.

Hence the present Petition.

5 There is no issue of caste, in view of the finding arrived

at by the Scrutiny Committee based upon the School Leaving

Certificates of her father, her sister and cousin dated 29.06.1960,

15.06.2001 and 06.07.1972 respectively, that they belong to Hindu

Vanjari. There are other supporting documents to justify the same.

Vigilance report also supports the caste claim of the Petitioner.

However, the Petitioner's application/affidavit, so filed in support of

waghmare/- 3/7

921.WP.3575.11.doc

the claim, was a caste certificate issued in the name of her sister

Mangala. However, in the affidavit it was mentioned that the

Petitioner Sharada and Mangala are one and same person. The

Petitioner stated used the caste certificate of her sister Mangala as of

her. In the enquiry it is revealed that they are two different persons.

This was treated to be misused of the caste certificate of sister by the

Petitioner, which resulted into revocation of the caste validity

certificate granted to her. There is no provision under the Act

whereby a caste validity certificate issued can be revoked, by the

same authority. However, in view of the above stated misuse of the

sister's certificate, though the impugned order was passed, yet the

right of the Petitioner to get the validity certificate based upon the

other substantial material on record including the supporting

certificates of father, real sister and cousin as referred above, ought

not to have been overlooked, while granting and/or considering the

caste of the Petitioner's caste validating certificates. Petitioner

cannot be without any valid caste certificates as the same is the

requirement of various institutions/authorities and/or her future

generation. This is in the background that based upon the same

caste certificates and the material so placed on record by the

Petitioner, the Committee, though recorded that the Petitioner

waghmare/- 4/7

921.WP.3575.11.doc

belongs to the Vanjari Community, but yet for the reason of misuse

of sister's certificate, cancelled the caste validity certificate in

question.

6 We are not dealing with the initiation of criminal

proceedings. However, there is no specific mention about the power

of revocation under the Act so exercised in the present case.

Therefore, for the above reasons, we are inclined to interfere with

the order. The case of fraud and misrepresentation, if any, required

to be dealt with in accordance with law based upon the complaint

but subject to provision of law including power to recall and/or

review of its own order. The complainant, though served, is not

present even on earlier occasions. He is free to take/initiate

proceedings, in accordance with law.

7 The aspect of non grant of caste validity certificate to

the Petitioner, need to be re-considered by the competent authority

by taking note of the documents/caste certificate placed on record

by the Petitioner of her father, sister and cousin showing that they

belong to Hindu Vanjari, in the light of provisions of the Act. The

caste certificate validation, cannot be denied if she is found to be

belongs to Hindu Vanjari community. There are other supporting

waghmare/- 5/7

921.WP.3575.11.doc

caste certificate and the material on record. The Petitioner is

permitted to file additional documents to support her caste claim,

including her own caste certificate. The Petitioner cannot be treated

in society of different caste other than the father and her sister. The

initiation of the criminal proceedings itself cannot be the reason not

to grant the valid caste certificate.

8 Hence the following order :-

i) The impugned order dated 21.12.2010 is,

therefore, quashed and set aside.

ii) Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply and

file additional documents including her own

caste certificate, if any, in support of her claim

within one month.

iii) The Respondent-Scrutiny Committee to deal with

the caste claim of the Petitioner in accordance

with law, as early as possible, within six months

thereafter.

iv) All contentions are kept open.

 waghmare/-                                     6/7




                                                               921.WP.3575.11.doc




                       v) The   Petition   is   allowed   and  Rule   is   made 

absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

  (MANISH PITALE, J.)                              (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)




 waghmare/-                                  7/7