Sneha D/O Digambar Machewad, R/O ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7743 Bom

Dusane                                     1/7                   1 wp 10349.2017

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO.10349 OF 2017




         Sneha d/o Digambar Machewad
         Age : 19 years, Occ.: Student,
         R/o : Talegaon (Bhokar),
         Tal. Deoni, District Latur                ....    Petitioner

                        Vs.

         1 The State of Maharashtra
           Through : Director of Mecial Admn,
           Mumbai - 32

         2 Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes,
           Through Vice-Chairman, Aurangabad

         3 Commissioner & Competent Authority,
           State CET Cell/ NEET,
           Maharashtra State, Mumbai

         4 Govt. Dental College, Mumbai
           Through Principal                       ....      Respondents



         Mr. S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. 

         Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, A.G., Mr. Akshay Shinde, Special Counsel 
         a/w Mr. Sandeep L. Babar, AGP  for the respondents-State.   




          ::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2017                ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 01:34:37 :::
 Dusane                                            2/7                    1 wp 10349.2017

                                            CORAM   :  SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & 
                                                       G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

                                            DATE     :    3 OCTOBER, 2017


         ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.) :



         1                 Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith.

         2                 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 

of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1st

September, 2017, Exhibit "F" passed by the second respondent-

Caste Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes whereby the caste

certificate issued to the petitioner in respect of claim of "Koli

Mahadev" scheduled tribe has been rejected and the certificate has

ordered to be confiscated and offence has been ordered to be

registered against her.

3 Briefly stated that the petitioner claiming herself to be

of Koli Mahadev caste of Scheduled Tribe applied for issuance of

caste certificate. After necessary enquiry, the caste certificate was

Dusane 3/7 1 wp 10349.2017

issued by the Competent Authority/ Sub Divisional Officer. The

said certificate was thereafter produced for validation before the

second respondent-Committee. In support of her claim, the

petitioner had submitted before the Committee as many as 28

documents including Caste Validity Certificate issued by the

Committee in favour of her father Digambar Trembak Machewad,

uncles viz. Dayanand Trembakrao Mache, Pandhari Trambak

Mache and Santosh Trembakrao Mache. Apart from the aforesaid

validity certificates, the petitioner also submitted Caste Certificates

of her close relatives, school admission extracts and school leaving

extracts of the close relatives and importantly a pre-constitution

document of her grandfather-Ambaji Hanumant Mache, which is of

the Nizam Year 1352, which as per learned counsel for the parties

by adding 590 years comes to the English calendar year 1942 (pre-

constitution).

4 The Committee conducted enquiry of these documents

through it's Vigilance Cell and after receipt of the Vigilance Cell's

Dusane 4/7 1 wp 10349.2017

report vide impugned order, rejected the petitioner's claim, on the

basis of two documents pertaining to petitioner's third cousin of the

years 24 June,1966 and 14 July, 1977 respectively in respect to

school admission extract.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Committee has committed error in discarding the vital documents

i.e. four validity certificates issued in respect to the petitioner's

father, three uncles as also committed error in ignoring the pre-

constitution documents in respect of her grandfather. In support of

his contention, the petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court

in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others 1, as also in the

law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raju R. Vasave

vs. M.D. Bhivapurkar2.

         1 2010 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal, 401

         2 (2008) 9 SCC, 54





 Dusane                                            5/7                        1 wp 10349.2017

         6                 From   the   aforesaid   judgments,   is   is   clear   that   in   the 

absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, order being without

jurisdiction or there is ignorance of any vital documents while

granting previous validity certificate, the validity certificate of near

relatives of the claimant cannot be discarded.

7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that

the reliance of the Committee on the two documents about the

petitioner's third cousin namely Laxman Vitthal Koli is of no

consequence as though his name is shown in genealogy, but he

belongs to a different branch of the family and in respect of the

petitioner had not submitted any vigilance certificate. Learned

counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Form "F" read with

Rule 11(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of), Certificate Rules, 2003 to contend

that the genealogical tree is to be submitted for showing the

relations with the relatives, whose validity certificates are enclosed

to the application and mentioned therein.

 Dusane                                          6/7                      1 wp 10349.2017




         8                 On   the   other   hand,   learned   AGP   has   supported   the 

         impugned order passed by the Committee.  



         9                 We have perused the Vigilance Report dated 26 August 

2017 produced before us by the learned AGP.. On a close scrutiny

of the same, it is clear that the only two documents have been

referred by the Vigilance Cell, which are relating to third cousin of

the petitioner, namely Laxman Vitthal Koli and Vyankat Vitthalvao

Koli. These documents are of the year 1977 and 1966 of Zilla

Parishad Schoo, Talegaon. These documents are not pre-

constitution documents, whereas the petitioner, in support of her

claim had submitted not only three pre-constitution documents but

also four validity certificates in respect of her close relatives

including father. It is also clear from the report of the Vigilance

Cell that Vigilance Cell has not disputed the documents produced

by the petitioner but has referred in respect of two documents in

which the entry of 'Koli' is recorded. In the circumstances, in our

Dusane 7/7 1 wp 10349.2017

view on the basis of some stray entries in respect to the distant

branch of the petitioner, the vital documents, which the petitioner

had produced for validation of her claim cannot be brushed aside

and overlooked.

10 In the circumstances, in our considered view, the

findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the

law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as also Supreme

Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale and Raju R.

Vasave vs. M.D. Bhivapurkar (supra).

11 As a result, we allow this petition and set aside the

impugned order of the Committee and direct the Committee to

issue to the Petitioner caste validation certificate forthwith, on

receipt of authenticated copy of this order.

( G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)