Bombay High Court
Juber Ahamad Siddique Ahamad vs District Caste Scrutiny ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
930 wp st10653-2020.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION (ST)NO.10653/2020
Juber Ahamad Siddique Ahamad
...Versus...
District Caste Scrutiny Committee, through its Chairman, Yavatmal and others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri Muhammed Ateeque, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 05/01/2021.
Heard Shri Muhammad Ateeque, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 12/08/2020
passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal invalidating the claim of the petitioner of the Caste
'Lohar'. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that Caste Scrutiny Committee has not properly appreciated
the claim made by the petitioner that he belongs to 'Lohar'
Community and the document of the year 1936 submitted
before it. He, therefore, submits that the jurisdictional error
has been committed by the Committee while rejecting the
claim. He further placed reliance upon the certificate issued
to one Shri Muhammed Arshad Jameel Ahemad and the
petitioner claims that he is his cousin and further contends
that since his cousin has been granted a validity, the same
should have been considered by the Committee. Perusal of
930 wp st10653-2020.odt
order of Committee indicates that the documents which have
been placed on record, indicate the caste as 'Muslim Lohar'.
'Muslim Lohar' is no caste at all. In fact, it is a profession as
rightly found by the Committee in the impugned order. That
apart, the claim which is raised by the petitioner saying that
his cousin was granted validity is too far fetched, for the
reason that the family tree at page 49, which is relied upon to
claim the relationship, does not anywhere contain the name
either of the petitioner or his father and the claim of
relationship also does not tally along with the family tree of
the petitioner placed at page 35. Therefore, since there is no
relationship established with said Muhammed Arshad Jameel
Ahemad, the certificate of validity issued by the Committee in
his favour, cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the procedure in Rule 77 of the Rules
of 2012 has not been followed. The question of following any
procedure would have arisen only if prima facie claim for
establishment of belonging to 'Lohar' community could have
been placed on record. Since there is no entry of "Muslim
Lohar" in the list, the question of following any procedure
does not arise at all.
Shri Muhammad Ateeque, learned counsel for the
petitioner further relied upon judgment in Writ Petition
No.1009/2017 contending that his case is covered by the said
judgment. The said judgment is basically upon undisputed
factual position that the Committee has issued validity
certificate to the blood relatives of the petitioner namely real
uncle, real cousin-sister and brother. This question was not
disputed there. In the present case, however, there is
930 wp st10653-2020.odt
apparently no relationship established between the said
cousin brother Muhammed Arshad Jameel Ahemad and the
present petitioner. In light of that, the judgment is clearly not
applicable. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present
petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
