Kum. Shruti Nivarutti Hainalkar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17726 Bom

             KVM

                                                1/8
                                                             10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          Digitally signed by
KANCHAN   KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD     MAYEKAR
          Date: 2021.12.22      WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 25236 OF 2021
MAYEKAR   18:37:54 +0530


             1. Kum. Shruti Nivarutti Hainalkar         )
             aged years, Occupation : Student           )

             2. Master Shravan Nivarutti Hainalkar,     )
             Occupation : Student, Minor through        )
             mother and natural Guardian                )
             Smt.Madhavi Nivrutti Hainalkar,            )
             residing at 15-B, Koli Samaj Society,      )
             Vijapur Road, Solapur - 413 004            )
             Dist. Solapur                              )    ..... Petitioners

                       VERSUS

             1. State of Maharashtra,                   )
             through its Secretary,                     )
             Tribal Development Department,             )
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032               )

             2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny )
             Committee, Pune Division, Pune             )
             through its Member Secretary, having its )
             office at Kapil Towers, C-Wing, 5th Floor, )
             Near RTO Office, Pune - 411 001,           )
             Dist. Pune                                 )

             3. Commissioner and Competent Authority,)
             State CET Cell, having its office at )
                                       th
             New Excelsior Building, 8 Floor,     )
             A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001)

             4. Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional )
             Officer, North Solapur Sub Division,   )
             Solapur, Dist. Solapur                 )
 KVM

                                   2/8
                                                  10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc
5. Shikshan Prasaraka Mandali, Pune )
through its Principal, Mangalvepdhekar )
Institute of Management Career,        )
Development and Research Solapur,      )
156-B, Railway H.D.High School Campus,)
Solapur - 413 001                      )          ..... Respondents

Mr.C.K.Bhangoji, a/w. Mr.T.V.Jadhav, i/b. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the
Petitioners.

Mrs.P.J.Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State - Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.

Mr.Sameer Khedekar for the Respondent no.3 - CET CELL.

                             CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                    R.N.LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 21st DECEMBER, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D.DHANUKA, J.) :-

Rule. Mrs.Gavhane, learned A.G.P. waives service for the

respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr.Sameer Khedekar, learned counsel

waives service for the respondent no.3. By consent of parties, writ

petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 9th December,

2021 passed by the respondent no.2 committee invalidating the caste

claim of the petitioners which was issued by the respondent no.4

competent authority.

KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc

3. The petitioners have impugned the order on various grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioners however invited our attention to the

Vigilance Report signed by Mr.S.A.Patil who was one of the member

of the caste scrutiny committee. It is contended that the said

Mr.S.A.Patil once having been appointed as a Vigilance Officer and has

submitted report in the same matter, could not have been part of the

Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel submits that in view of

this admitted position, the entire order passed by the caste scrutiny

committee is nullity and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Ms.Gavhane, learned A.G.P. on instruction tenders a copy of the

letter dated 14th September, 2021 in another matter in support of her

contention that there is no provision under the Maharashtra Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000

that the Vigilance Officer who has submitted a report while making an

enquiry into the caste claim of the applicant in the same matter cannot

be a part of the same Caste Scrutiny Committee before whom the KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc Vigilance Officer has submitted a report.

5. Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 clearly indicates

that if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary

evidence produced by the applicant, the Scrutiny Committee shall

forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school,

home and other enquiry. The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local

place of residence and original place from which the applicant hails

and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the town or city or place

from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer shall

personally verify and collect all the facts about the social status

claimed by the applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may

be.

6. The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian of

the applicant for the purpose of verification of their Tribe, of the

applicant. After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall

submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turn scrutinize

the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. In case, the report of the KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc Vigilance Cell is in favour of the applicant and if the Caste Scrutiny

Committee is satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine and

true, the Caste Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate.

7. Rule 12(8) provides that if the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not

satisfied about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall issue a

show cause notice to the applicant and also serve a copy of the report

of the Vigilance Officer by registered post with acknowledgment due.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee has to give an opportunity to deal with

the said Vigilance Cell Report.

8. Rule 13(2) (b) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 provides

that the finding recorded and the opinion expressed, if any, by the

Vigilance Officer shall not be binding on Scrutiny Committee nor can

be used as evidence, in support of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste

converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category claim. KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc If the scrutiny committee is not satisfied with the report submitted by

the Vigilance Cell, scrutiny committee has to record the reasons as to

why the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell is not accepted.

9. In our view, the role of the Vigilance Cell is separately

prescribed under the said Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the rules

framed thereunder. The role of the Vigilance Cell is to assist the Caste

Scrutiny Committee while considering the caste claim of an applicant.

The report of the Vigilance Cell is not binding upon the Scrutiny

Committee. In our view, the member of the Vigilance Cell thus cannot

be the part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Officer

who is one of the member of the committee, cannot be judge of his

own cause.

10. The submission of the learned A.G.P. that the other three

members of the committee were part of the Vigilance Cell and even if

one of the member of the Committee was from Vigilance Cell would KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc not materially affect the decision of the Scrutiny Committee deserves

to be rejected at the threshold. Even one member of the Vigilance Cell

having given opinion in the same matter cannot act as the member of

the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee of four member in this case is vitiated on that ground.

11. A perusal of Rules 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules,

2012 would clearly indicate that the constitution of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee and Vigilance Cell are totally different. Vigilance Cell has

to work under the control and supervision of the concerned Caste

Scrutiny Committee. Similar provisions are also found in Rules 9 and

10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003.

12. We accordingly pass the following order :-

(a) The impugned order dated 9th December, 2021

passed by the respondent no.2 Committee is quashed and KVM

10 - WPST 25236 OF 2021.doc setting aside. The caste claim of the petitioner is restored

to file before the respondent no.2 committee for deciding

the matter afresh in accordance with law and without

being influenced by the observations made and the

conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 9 th

December, 2021. It is made clear that the respondent no.2

Caste Scrutiny Committee shall not include Mr.S.A.Patil

who was part of the Vigilance Cell enquiry.

(b) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the

claim expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from

today.

13. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made

absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

[R.N.LADDHA, J.]                              [R.D.DHANUKA, J.]