Pranav Dilip Wagh vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13485 Bom

                                                                         33.wp.5622.2021.odt

dik
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
          DHANAPPA
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 DHANAPPA ERAPPA
 ERAPPA   KOSHTI
 KOSHTI   Date:
          2021.09.22
          17:00:53
          +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5622 OF 2021

                       Pranav Dilip Wagh                          ... Petitioner
                            Vs
                       The State of Maharashtra through Secretary
                       & Ors.                                     ... Respondents


                       Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, advocate for the Petitioner
                       Ms Kavita N. Solunke AGP for the Respondent/State.

                                               CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
                                                       ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATE : 20th SEPTEMBR, 2021

P.C. :

The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 3 rd

September, 2021 passed by respondent No.2 / Committee

invalidating the Caste Certifcate issued to the petitioner.

2. Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner invited our attention to the order passed by this Court on

30th July, 2021 in Writ Petition No. 2439 of 2021 fled by the

petitioner against the State of Maharashtra & Anr. thereby

permitting the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee

and directing the Scrutiny Committee to consider the submissions

33.wp.5622.2021.odt

made by the petitioner and respondent No.1 and consider the

decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra

Shivram Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2019 (4) Mh.L.J.

721. This Court by the said order was pleased to set aside the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the

petitioner and directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the matter

afresh in accordance with law.

3 Learned counsel invited our attention to the various

submissions fled by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee

(Page 96 of the Writ Petition). He invited our attention to the Full

Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Thakur

(supra) and particularly paragraph 2, 52 and 60 and would submit

that this Court has already held that, the candidate desirous of

seeking caste certifcate shall have to apply to the Competent

Authority having jurisdiction over the area or place to which he/she

or his / her father, grandfather originally belongs or was/is an

ordinary resident or native of that place. This was subject to

exception that in cases where such applicants can produce tribe

certifcate issued in favour of their father or grandfather issued by

Competent Authority of their original place of residence as on the

33.wp.5622.2021.odt

date of presidential order of their tribe.

4 It is submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner,

namely, Murlidhar Sonu Wagh was granted his caste certifcate

on 15th January, 1982 bearing S.R. No. 13/82 being resident of

Amalner, District Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra. He submits

that on the basis of the said certifcate granted in favour of the

grandfather of the petitioner, the petitioner was issued a certifcate

in Form "C" after considering Rule 4(6) and 5(2) (a) and (b). He

submit that the petitioner was migrated to Kalyan, District :- Thane.

In Clause (2) of the said certifcate it is provided that the petitioner

to ordinarily reside(s) in village /town Kalyan, taluka :- Kalyan, of

Thane District. It is applicable to the migrants within the

Maharashtra State.

5 It is submitted that the case of the petitioner squarely

falls under the exception carved out by the Full Bench of this Court

in paragraph 60 in case of Rajendra Thakur (supra). Learned

counsel invited our attention to the impugned order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee and more particularly paragraph 5 and would

submit that the Scrutiny Committee has totally misconstrued the

33.wp.5622.2021.odt

judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra

Thakur (supra) and has not considered the said exception carved

out by the Full Bench of this Court in the said judgment.

6 Learned counsel also invited our attention to Rule 5(2)

of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and

Verifcation of) Certifcate Rules, 2003 and would submit that the

petitioner who is migrated from one district to another is entitled to

get Caste Validity Certifcate on the basis of the Caste Certifcate

issued to his grandfather by the concerned Competent Authority of

the State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner is not required to apply for such Caste Certifcate before

the authority at Jalgaon in view of the exception carved out by the

Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Thakur (supra).

7. Learned AGP for the State seeks time to consider these

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also to

consider the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Rajendra Thakur (supra) and to make an appropriate statement

before this Court whether the said judgment applies to the facts of

this case or not.

33.wp.5622.2021.odt

8. Place the matter High On Board on 24th September, 2021

as "Part Heard".

( ABHAY AHUJA, J. )              ( R. D. DHANUKA , J. )