Bombay High Court
Prasad Rajendra Damale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 1766.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1026 WRIT PETITION NO.1766 OF 2021
PRASAD RAJENDRA DAMALE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners:
Mr. S. R. Barlinge h/f. Mr. Jadhav Ganesh R.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya
...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE: 03rd FEBRUARY, 2021
PER COURT:
1. The tribe claims of the petitioners as Koli
Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe are invalidated.
2. Mr. Barlinge, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners submits that the real sister of
petitioner no. 1 is issued with the validity
certificate of Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe. The
pre-constitutional document of the year - 1943, in
the name of Changdev great grandfather of the
petitioners records caste as Koli Mahadev.
According to the learned Counsel, the said
document will have precedence. The said document
is also filed in the case of Shraddha, in whose
favour validity was granted. The learned Counsel
2 wp 1766.2021
submits that the document of the year - 1933 i.e.
the birth extract of the son of Changu recording
caste as Koli, as observed by the vigilance, was
never considered by the committee while delivering
the judgment. The learned Counsel submits that the
other documents relied by the committee are post-
constitutional documents. They will not have much
evidential value as compared to the pre-
constitutional documents.
3. Mr. Lakhotiya, the learned A.G.P. submits
that the oldest document is of the year - 1933,
wherein the caste of the son of Changu is recorded
as Koli. There are numerous documents i.e. the
school record of the petitioners grandfather,
cousin grandfather wherein the caste is recorded
as Koli. Those documents are of the year 1954 to
1962. The validity was granted to Shraddha without
conducting the vigilance and on the basis of
validity given in favour of maternal relatives.
3 wp 1766.2021
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.G.P. for the respondents-State.
5. On perusing the vigilance report, it is found
that the petitioners have nowhere denied the
documents wherein caste is recorded as Hindu Koli
in the school records of Madhav Fakira, Lahanu
Fakira, Jijabai Fakira, Eknath Baburao, Mohan
Kashinath, Kum. Suman Nivrutti. These documents
are of the year 1954 to 1962. It also appears that
the petitioners had not given any reply to the
document that was considered by the vigilance i.e.
the document of the year - 1933 i.e. the birth
extract of the son of Changu, wherein the caste is
recorded as Koli. It appears that, in the judgment
said document is not referred to.
6. At this stage, Mr. Barlinge, the learned
Counsel submits that the petitioners be given an
opportunity to controvert the documents relied by
the respondents.
4 wp 1766.2021
7. Considering that the matter pertains to the
social status of the petitioners, we are inclined
to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners.
8. In the result, we pass the following order.
9. The impugned order is set aside. The matter
is relegated before the Scrutiny Committee. The
petitioners may appear before the Scrutiny
Committee on 15.02.2021. The petitioners may file
additional say to the vigilance. The petitioners,
if they so desire, may file additional documents
on which they place their reliance. The Scrutiny
Committee shall consider the additional say filed
by the petitioners, the additional documents and
may take decision on it's own merits, in
accordance with law, preferably within three (03)
months from the date of appearance of the
petitioners.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
