Aryan S/O Swati Sakhare And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13180 Bom

1/6                                               Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt



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

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4524 OF 2022

1.    Aryan s/o Swati Sakhare
      Aged about 20 Years, Occupation-Student;
      R/o Laghuwetan Colony, Near Ekta Gate,
      Kamptee Road, Jaripatka, Nagpur.

2.    Swati d/o Raibhan Sakhare
      Aged about 50 Years, Occupation-
      Advocate, R/o Laghuwetan Colony, Near
      Ekta Gate, Kamptee Road, Jaripatka,
      Nagpur.                                          ... PETITIONERS

                VERSUS

1.    State of Maharashtra
      Through its Secretary, Social Justice and
      Special Assistant Department, Mantralaya,
      Mumbai-400 032.

2.    District Caste Scrutiny Committee,
      Bhandara, through its President.

3.    The Collector, Bhandara.                        ... RESPONDENTS


Mr. M. M. Sudame, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. A. A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.


      CORAM              : A. S. CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

      DATE               : DECEMBER 19, 2022.
 2/6                                                  Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt



ORAL JUDGMENT - [PER ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]

.             Heard Mr. Sudame, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.

Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner No.1 is son and Petitioner No.2 is mother. The Petitioner No.1's caste claim as belonging to 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste has been invalidated by the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee mainly on the ground that the Petitioner No.1 has not submitted the documentary evidence from the paternal side relatives, but has submitted and based his caste claim on the basis of documents of the maternal side relatives.

4. The Petitioner No.1 in support of his caste claim submitted Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of his mother i.e. Petitioner No.2. In addition he had submitted the documentary evidence of maternal relatives to substantiate his caste claim as belonging to 'Mahar'.

5. The Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents which are of the year 1948, 1954, 1966 and so on. The Scrutiny Committee had held that these documents show that the caste of the maternal relatives of the Petitioner No.1 is 'Mahar'. The Scrutiny Committee has then referred to the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of the mother of the Petitioner No.1. According to the Scrutiny Committee, Caste Validity Certificate had been issued by the Pune Scrutiny Committee, however, it is 3/6 Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt

not clear as to on what basis and documents, the validity has been granted. Therefore, the Petitioner was called upon by the Scrutiny Committee to bring all those documents, on the basis of which, his mother's caste claim was validated by Pune Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner No.1 and his mother attended the office and submitted the documents as sought.

6. The Scrutiny Committee then observed that the validity has been given on the basis of the documents of the ancestors of the Petitioner's mother. According to the Scrutiny Committee, those documents have no nexus with the documents of the paternal relatives of the Petitioner No.1. The Scrutiny Committee has further recorded on the basis of information given by the Petitioner No.1's mother, that the father named Kulbhushan Chopda of the Petitioner No.1 was 'Mona Punjabi' and that the Petitioner No.1's father started residing separately after one year of the birth of Petitioner No.1 and that on 3/4/2011 he expired.

7. According to the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner No.1 has not filed any document to show that the mother of the Petitioner No.1 has obtained divorce prior to the death of the Petitioner No.1's father. The Petitioner No.1's date of birth is 28/12/2002. Thereafter the Scrutiny Committee by relying upon Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, 'the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012') has held that it is mandatory to submit the documentary evidence from the paternal side relatives of the Applicant in 4/6 Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt

support of caste claim. The same having been not done, the caste claim of the Petitioner No.1 has been invalidated.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader though made an attempt to justify the order, we find the approach of the Scrutiny Committee completely erroneous and against the decisions rendered by this Court.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3254/2021 in the case of Kasturi Sushma Khandekar V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. while considering similar such issue has held that the issue as to which out of the two social status, one that of the father and the other that of the mother could be claimed by the person would depend upon the evidence regarding the manner in which and by whom the person has been reared. In the said case, so also in the present case, the facts would show that Petitioner No.1 has been almost entirely brought up by his mother who belonged to 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste.

10. The Co-ordinate Bench in the above Writ Petition and after recording the facts of the case has observed in paragraph No.5 as under :

"5. Thus, the evidence shows that for all purposes the Petitioner has grown and has been reared in an atmosphere and with customs, traditions and practices that prevail in a household inhabited by Mahar caste persons, which is the caste of the mother of the Petitioner from maternal side. This evidence would certainly entitle the Petitioner to stake a claim as belonging to Mahar caste, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika V/s State of 5/6 Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt

Gujrat and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 400, which is followed by this Court in many of its judgments including the one in the case of Anchal d/o Bharati Badwaik V/s District Caste Scrutiny Committee and Ors. (WP No.4905 of 2018, decided on 8 April 2019). However, while invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee erroneously held that the Petitioner ought to have submitted evidence from the side of her father in order to prove her claim. In the face of evidence overwhelmingly favouring the case of the Petitioner showing that she is entitled to claim the social status of her mother, the Scrutiny Committee took quite a contrary view ignoring the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Naika (supra)."

11. Here, the Petitioner No.1 was born in the year 2002. His father expired in the year 2011. The Petitioner No.1 was, thus, nine years old at that time. As such, the Petitioner No.1 has stated before the Scrutiny Committee that his father left the family within one year of his birth, which the Petitioner No.1 might not have proved to the satisfaction of the Scrutiny Committee, however the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the admitted fact that the Petitioner No.1's father expired in the year 2011, ought to have held that the Petitioner No.1 has been brought up by his mother.

12. Thus, the Petitioner No.1's claim was supported by an overwhelming evidence in the form of the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of his mother. Therefore, and for the reasons recorded in the judgment in Kasturi Sushma Khandekar's case (supra) we are of the considered view that the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously held that the Petitioner No.1 failed to prove his caste claim. The Scrutiny 6/6 Judg.wp.4524.2022.odt

Committee ought to have validated the caste claim of the Petitioner No.1 on the basis of the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of his mother in the light of the Judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale V/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein it is held that where the caste claim of a person has been scrutinized and accepted and one committee has given a finding about the validity of his caste, another committee ought not to refuse the same status to his/her blood relative who applies subsequently.

13. In the result, we find that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of the law. It is liable to be set aside. We, accordingly, proceed to pass the order as follows :

(i) The impugned order dated 9/12/2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee, Bhandara is quashed and set aside.

(ii) It is declared that the Petitioner No.1 has proved that he belongs to 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste. The Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee shall within a period of 10 days from receipt of copy of this order issue Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner No.1.

(iii) Till the Petitioner No.1 receives Caste Validity Certificate, he is free to refer to the copy of this order to indicate that he had been held entitled to receive Caste Validity Certificate.

14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) GOURISHANKAR YADAV Signing Date:20.12.2022 10:36 Yadav VG