Sou. Surekha Mahesh Chavan vs District Caste Scrutiny ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4361 Bom

                     Digitally signed
           Swaroop   by Swaroop S.
                     Phadke
           S.        Date:
           Phadke    2021.03.13
                     15:14:54 +0530
                                                               WP. 1322 - 2020.odt


VPH
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION No. 1322 OF 2020

               Sou. Surekha Mahesh Chavan, Adult       )
               Occu. - Social Service, Residing at -   )
               Shiroli Pulachi, Taluka Hatkalangale,   )
               District Kolhapur                       ...   Petitioner

                                        Vs.

      1.       District Caste Scrutiny Committee, )
               Kolhapur, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar )
               Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Vichare Mal.             )
               District Kolhapur                  )

      2.       The District Collector, Kolhapur        )
               Svaraj Bhavan, Nagalpark,               )
               District Kolhapur                       )

      3.     Arif Mahamad Sarjekhan, Age adult )
             Occu. - Agriculturist, Residing at - )
             Shiroli Pulachi, Taluka Hatkalangale, )
             District Kolhapur                     ...   Respondents
                                         ***
      Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate i/b Tanaji Mhatugade, for the
      Petitioner.
      Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent - State.
      Mr. Drupad Patil, for the Respondent No. 3.
                                         ***
                                              CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA &
                                                     VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON : MARCH 2, 2021 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 10, 2021

1 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

JUDGMENT [PER : VINAY JOSHI, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Advocate's

Application for the Respondents on institution waives notice of rule.

Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

2. The Petitioner has approached this Court on being

aggrieved by the Order dated 23.1.2020 thereby rejecting the claim of

the Petitioner of belonging to the Hindu (Nhavi) caste, which is

recognized as Other Backward Class ("OBC") at Sr. No. 108 under a

Government Resolution dated 13.10.1967 in the State of Maharashtra.

3. The lady Petitioner, whose maiden name was Surekha

Vasant Mane, has contested the election of Gram Panchayat for the

village-Shiroli Pulachi, taluka-Hatkalangale, district-Kolhapur, from the

reserved seat for the OBC category. The Petitioner was elected and

became a member of the Gram Panchayat of the said village. The

Petitioner claims to be belonging to the Hindu (Nhavi) caste, on the

basis of the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Ichalkaranji, dated 23.12.2016. The Petitioner had applied to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee for the verification of her caste claim and for the

2 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

issuance of validity certificate. The Petitioner had supplied various

documents in support of her claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee entrusted the matter to the Vigilance

Cell for conducting a local inquiry. The Respondent No. 3 had objected

to the Petitioner's claim before the Scrutiny Committee by way of

tendering certain documents. On evaluation of the Petitioner's caste

claim, the Scrutiny Committee vide its Order dated 29.6.2018 rejected

the Petitioner's claim for issuing a validity certificate. Being aggrieved

by the said decision, the Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 7646 of

2018 before this Court. Vide its Order dated 1.10.2019, this Court

quashed and set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee dated

29.6.2018 and remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for

fresh consideration. Concerning the same, the Petitioner had tendered

some additional documents along with an extended genealogy to the

Committee in support of her claim. On fresh assessment, once again

the Petitioner's caste claim came to be rejected by the Committee vide

its impugned Order dated 23.1.2020.

4. At the inception, the learned counsel for the Petitioner

3 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

drew our attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the earlier Order of this

Court dated 1.10.2019. It is stated that in an earlier round of litigation,

this Court had expressed that the Committee has ignored the mention

of the word "Nhavi" in the revenue document of Amruta. According

to the Petitioner, the revenue extract (page 23 of the Petition) of

Amruta Sitaram Mane (alleged real brother of Petitiner's grant father)

bears mention of the Nhavi caste, which ought to have been considered

by the Committee. Moreover, it is argued that the School Leaving

Certificate of the Petitioner's brother Dipak bears reference of the

Nhavi caste, as well as there is an entry of the Nhavi caste in the School

Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner's cousin sister Sumitra. It is

submitted that all these vital documents have been ignored by the

Committee while assessing the Petitioner's claim. Further, the learned

counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the first round of litigation

the Committee had accepted (paragraph 8, page 52 of the Petition) the

Petitioner's relationship with her grand father's real brother (cousin

grand-father) Amruta, but in the next round, the Committee held that

the relationship has not been established.

5. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 emphatically 4 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

resisted the Petitioner's claim by supporting the impugned Order dated

23.1.2020. He submitted that neither Amruta, nor Dipak, nor Sumitra

are related to the Petitioner. It is argued that the Petitioner was born in

Karnataka State and her father was also a permanent resident of

Karnataka who lived there till his death. Prior to the deemed date of

13.10.1967, the Petitioner's family was very much living in Karnataka

State and, therefore, she is not entitled to the benefits.

6. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, we have

gone through the impugned Order, documents tendered by both sides

as well as the original record. The Petitioner has submitted her School

Leaving Certificate issued by the Principal B. S. Composite Pre-

University College Bedkihal, district Belgaon, State of Karnataka,

which shows that at the time of her admission, her caste was shown as

Hindu Maratha. The Petitioner has submitted the School Leaving

Certificate of one Sumitra (alleged cousin sister) of the village-Rangoli,

taluka- Hatkalangale, district-Kolhapur. However, there are no

supporting documents to establish the Petitioner's relationship with

Sumitra. Also, the Petitioner has not produced any other documents to

5 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

show that she or her forefathers were residents of the village-Rangoli.

On the contrary, the contesting Respondent has produced several

documents to disprove the Petitioner's claim regarding their residence

at village Rangoli.

7. The Petitioner had initially tendered a genealogical tree on

Affidavit dated 16.9.2017, showing the name of her grand-father as

Laxman Bhagoji Mane. It is worthwhile noting that in the second

genealogy, the Petitioner has shown the name of her grand-father as

Laxman Sitaram Mane. There is no explanation as to how the name of

Laxman's father has been changed from Bhagoji to Sitaram. Moreover,

it is not the case of the Petitioner that Bhagoji was also known as

Sitaram nor were such documents tendered. In an extended genealogy,

a new branch of Amruta, in the capacity of being the brother of

Laxman, has been added. Moreover, in the said genealogy, the

Petitioner has shown that she had a brother Dipak, which was not

shown in her earlier genealogy. In order to satisfy the Petitioner's

relation with either Amruta or Dipak, no revenue documents have been

furnished.

6 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

8. The Petitioner has heavily relied on the old revenue

extract of Amruta Sitaram Mane wherein his caste was mentioned as

Nhavi. The Petitioner claims that said Amruta, resident of taluka-

Mangalwedha, district-Solapur was the real brother of her grand-father

Laxman. However, as per the first genealogy tendered on Affidavit,

Laxman's father's name was merely shown as Bhagoji and not Sitaram.

The contesting Respondent has pointed to the death extract of the

Petitioner's father Vasant wherein his father's full name has been

mentioned as Laxman Bhagoji Mane (not as Laxman Sitaram Mane).

Therefore, the Petitioner utterly fails to establish her relationship with

Amruta. Hence, the said revenue extract cannot be relied upon.

Moreover, there are no documents to establish a connection of the

Petitioner's family with taluka-Mangalwedha, district-Solapur from

where said Amruta hails.

9. The contesting Respondent has produced a certificate

issued by the Rangoli Gram Panchayat, taluka-Hatkalangale, to the

effect that the Petitioner's father Vasant was not a resident of the said

village. Moreover, the Death Certificate of Vasant shows that he died

7 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

at village-Bedkihal, taluka-Chikodi, district-Belgaon. Besides that, the

contesting Respondent has produced a voters' list of Nipani

constituency, Karnataka State, wherein the name of the Petitioner's

brother was shown as Ramesh and not Dipak. The said material clearly

postulates that since the very beginning, the Petitioner's family was

residing permanently in Karnataka State. In other words, the

Petitioner failed to establish that her forefathers were residents of

Maharashtra State prior to the deemed date i.e. 13.10.1967. The

Respondent has drawn our attention to the Government Notification

dated 31.8.2012. Clause (3) of the Notification says that the competent

authority can issue a caste certificate to a person, who is a permanent

resident of the concerned area on the deemed date. In case the

claimant is born after due date, then the permanent residence of his

forefathers on the deemed date requires consideration. Therefore,

undoubtedly, the Petitioner whose family was not residing in the State

of Maharashtra on the deemed date, cannot derive any benefits from

the State of Maharashtra.

10. Although the Petitioner has produced a caste validity

8 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

certificate of one Kiran Shankar Mane, his relationship with the

Petitioner has not been established. The Scrutiny Committee in the

earlier round of litigation has not accepted the Petitioner's relationship

with Amruta (referred supra) but it was a mere reference to the facts

that were pleaded.

11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on

certain documents from the Petitioner's maternal side. In this regard,

he placed reliance on the decision of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the

case of Anchal d/o Bharat Badwaik Vs. The District Caste Scrutiny

Committee & Ors. dated 8th April, 2019 in the Writ Petition No. 4905

of 2018. However, in the absence of credible documents the said

decision would not apply to the facts of this case. Moreover, the

learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in

the case of Sagar Malage Vs. Member/Chairman, Divisional Caste

Scrutiny Commi No. 2, Kolhapur & Ors. [2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 319] to

contend that the part of Karnataka from where the Petitioner originally

belongs, was a part of the erstwhile State of Bombay. The said ratio

would not apply in the absence of supporting material and particularly

9 / 10 WP. 1322 - 2020.odt

in view of the deemed date for the OBC caste i.e. 13.10.1967.

12. Having an overall view of the matter, we are of the

considered opinion that the Scrutiny Committee has properly

evaluated all the documents while rejecting the Petitioner's claim.

Certainly, the Committee is duty bound to reject the false claim, and

also to safeguard the claims of genuine persons. In substance, the

Petitioner has failed to establish her caste claim and therefore, the

impugned Order calls no interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed

and Rule is discharged.

[VINAY JOSHI, J.]                          [S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.]




                                                                10 / 10