Niraj Baburao Kathane vs District Caste Certificate ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15243 Bom

                                       1                        wp2748.21

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION NO.2748 OF 2021

Niraj Baburao Kathane,
aged about 19 years,
occupation : student - aspirant
for admission to Higher Education,
under NT quota, resident of village
Marakhodi, Post Gurwada,
Tahsil Gadchiroli, District
Gadchiroli - 442 605.                                ...     Petitioner

                - Versus -

1)   District Caste Certificate
     Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
     through its Member Secretary,
     Campus Area, Gadchiroli -
     442605.

2)   State of Maharashtra,
     Department of Social Justice
     and Special Assistance,
     through its Secretary,
     1st Floor, Annex Building,
     Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
     Mumbai - 400 032.

3)   Maharashtra State Backward
     Class Commission, through its
     Member Secretary, 3rd Floor,
     307, New Administrative Building,
     Opposite Council Hall,
     Pune 411 001.                             ...         Respondents
                -----------------
Shri S.P. Khare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
                ----------------




 ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021               ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:33:01 :::
                                            2                        wp2748.21



                                CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                        A.L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : OCTOBER 25, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :

Heard Shri Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and

Shri Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents.

2) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the

learned Counsel for the parties.

3) The tribe claim of the petitioner as he belonging to "Zade"

(Nomadic Tribe-C) has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on

the ground that the petitioner could not adduce any reliable

evidence, although it is the submission of Shri Khare, learned

Counsel for the petitioner, that overwhelming evidence of great

probative value was indeed tendered by the petitioner, which was

unfortunately not appreciated properly by the Scrutiny Committee.

Shri Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents, of course, supports the impugned order, but he also

3 wp2748.21

could not substantiate his opposition by referring to any convincing

reason finding its place in the impugned order.

4) In this case, there has been a split opinion amongst members

of the Scrutiny Committee. The minority view is that the petitioner

has succeeded in establishing his tribe claim, but the majority view

is quite opposite to it. According to majority view, the petitioner

failed in proving his claim. The majority view, it is seen from the

impugned order, does not consider the entry of the year 1947-48

regarding birth of a child "Budi" to the couple by name Lachma and

Ganga Zade, in its proper spirit. This entry has been rejected by the

majority opinion on the ground that Lachma and Ganga have not

been established by the petitioner as his blood relatives. According

to the majority opinion, the petitioner ought to have produced in

evidence additional documents, such as extract of School record or

some relevant School documents to establish his claim that Lachma

and Ganga were his paternal ancestors. It appears that the Scrutiny

Committee, in doing so, has not considered the conclusion recorded

by the Vigilance Officer in his vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance

Officer in his report has not taken any exception to the relationship

of the petitioner to Lachma and Ganga from his paternal side, rather

the Vigilance Officer has found that the entry of 1947 indicates social

4 wp2748.21

status of the persons named in the document of 1947. The majority

view has also not considered the evidence of old villagers, who had

stated before the Vigilance Officer about the relationship of Lachma

with petitioner. The result of not considering the relevant facts even

from the evidence available before the Scrutiny Committee by the

members, who formed majority, is of erroneous final conclusion

and, therefore, we are of the view that such conclusion would not

stand to the scrutiny of law. Any conclusion recorded in ignorance

of these relevant facts would have to be found as perverse and illegal,

which we do so.

5) In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is

allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 12/2/2021

passed by the Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh

decision in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear

before the Scrutiny Committee on 15th November 2021 and the

Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the tribe claim of the

petitioner afresh in accordance with law within three months from

the date of appearance of the petitioner before it. Leave to produce

additional documents before the Scrutiny Committee is granted to

the petitioner.

                                      5                          wp2748.21



6)     Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.




           JUDGE                                               JUDGE




khj