Bombay High Court
Gopal Kishan Ghiradkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 October, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
935 WP 8232 OF 2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
935 WRIT PETITION NO.8232 OF 2019
GOPAL KISHAN GHIRADKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sabnis Ameya N
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. K. N. Lokhande
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Avinash R. Salve
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 04.10.2022.
PER COURT :
We have heard both the sides.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee refusing to validate the caste certificate issued in his favour as
belonging to 'Nathjogi ('NT').
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sabnis for the petitioner would submit that the
committee has overlooked the validities issued in favour of Dattamilan
Jyotinath Ghiradkar and Nitin Jyotinath Ghiradkar who are his cousins in
spite of the fact that a genealogy was before the committee as also the
affidavit of Dattamilan. The committee has brushed aside those validities
for the lame excuse of inability of the petitioner to establish any relation
with the validity holders.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that the
petitioner should have been given an opportunity to demonstrate the
relation between him and the validity holders rather than shunting all the
doors.
935 WP 8232 OF 2019.odt
5. The learned A.G.P. by referring to the files of said Dattamilan and
Ramesh would submit that there is variance in the genealogy given by the
petitioner and the one to be found in those files as given by Ramesh, who
incidentally happens to be a distant cousin of the petitioner who is also a
validity holder.
6. We have physically verified the composite file of Ramesh and
Dattamilan. The petitioner had filed affidavit of Dattamilan specifically
stating his relation with the petitioner but there is absolutely no reference in
the judgment of the committee touching this affidavit. Though the learned
A.G.P. has now strenuously tried to demonstrate that there is some variance
in the genealogy given by the petitioner and the one given by the Dattamilan
and Ramesh, we are afraid, this is a new ground being made out by the
learned A.G.P. inasmuch the committee has not based its decision on this
variance.
7. A bare look at the genealogy given by Ramesh in his case and the
genealogy given by Dattamilan in the affidavit filed in his own case,
according to us, prima facie it cannot be said that the genealogy given by
the petitioner and one given by Ramesh and Dattamilan is incompatible.
8. Be that as it may, the committee having not considered all these
aspects while rejecting the petitioner's claim and even the order does not
demonstrate about it having gone through the affidavit of Dattamilan in his
own file as also the one filed by the petitioner, the impugned order is not
sustainable in law.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances we deem it appropriate to
remand the matter for decision by the Scrutiny Committee afresh by
extending an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim
regarding relationship with the validity holders and expecting the committee
to bear in mind the observations made herein above.
935 WP 8232 OF 2019.odt
10. We allow the writ petition partly. The impugned order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
back to it for decision afresh on merits without being influenced by any of
the observations made herein above touching the scrutiny of the evidence.
11. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 11.11.2022 and
there shall be no need for it to issue any notice to him.
12. The Committee shall thereafter decide the matter afresh, as early as
possible and in any event within twelve (12) weeks from the date of his
appearance.
13. The interim relief to continue till the decision of the Scrutiny
Committee.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
