Bombay High Court
Payal Jerom Palghadmal vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 September, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 2248.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2248 OF 2016
Payal D/o Jerom Palghadmal,
Age : 21 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o Satral, Tq. Rahuri,
Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee - 1, Nashik Division,
Nashik.
3. Pravara Gramin Aushadh Nirman
Shastra Mahavidyalaya,
Pravara Nagar, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents
Shri Y. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. W. Mundhe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri A. V. Hon, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
2 wp 2248.16
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. The caste claim of the petitioner as 'Mahar' (Scheduled
Caste) was referred to the Committee for verification. The
Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
Aggrieved thereby present petition.
3. Mr. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the revenue documents of pre-independence era
showed the name of the petitioner's great grandfather as Arjun
Mahar. The said entry is consistently observed in various 7/12
extracts and mutation entries. The learned counsel submits
that, even school record of the petitioner depict the caste as
Mahar. Only on the ground that there are no old documents and
that some statements are recorded from the uncle of the
petitioner and grandfather that last rites were observed as per
Christian religion, the claim of the petitioner is invalidated. The
learned counsel submits that, even claim of paternal cousin of
the petitioner has been validated by the Committee as Mahar
(S.C.). One claim was validated prior to invalidation of the
petitioner's claim and another claim was validated after
invalidation of petitioner's claim. However, petitioner could not
place on record the validity certificate of her paternal cousin
validating his claim prior to invalidation of petitioner's caste
claim.
3 wp 2248.16
4. We have also heard the learned Assistant Government
pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who supports the order
passed and submits that, the petitioner was professing
Christianity.
5. The petitioner had not placed on record genealogy before
the Committee. It would not be possible to consider the validity
granted in favour of the paternal cousin of the petitioner, in
absence of the genealogy being verified by the vigilance.
6. The vigilance has observed that, they had visited the
Churches in the nearby vicinity, however, could not find any
record of the petitioner or her ancestor under going baptism. The
revenue documents of pre-independence era records Mahar as
against the name of the person namely Arjun, who is claiming to
be the great grandfather of the petitioner, however, same also has
to be verified by the vigilance that is relationship.
7. Considering the above, we deem it appropriate to grant one
more opportunity to the petitioner.
8. In the result we pass following order.
9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties
4 wp 2248.16
are relegated before the Committee for deciding caste claim of
the petitioner afresh. The parties shall appear before the
Committee on 03rd October, 2017. The petitioner has filed on
record the additional documents on which she seeks to place
reliance, so also genealogy. The Committee may refer the said
documents and such other aspects to the vigilance and shall
decide the said proceeding afresh after hearing the petitioner
expeditiously and preferably within a period of six (06) months
from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Sept. 17
