Bombay High Court
Ganesh Aabasaheb Dahe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 8 December, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:25910-DB
1 6781.2020wp..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6781 OF 2020
Ganesh s/o. Aabasaheb Dahe,
Age : 19 years, Occu : Education,
Original Resident of Manvat, Tq. Manvat,
Dist. Parbhani
At Present R/o. Malsona, Post : Dhasadi,
Tq. Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Special Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Member Secretary,
District Caste Scrutiny Committee
For S. C., V.J., N.T., O.B.C. & S.B.C.,
Committee Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani.
3. The Principal,
College of Agriculture, Selu,
Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani .. Respondents
...
Mr. H. V. Patil, Advcoate for the Petitioner
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for the Respondents No.1 & 2
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2023
JUDGMENT (Per NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at the stage of
2 6781.2020wp..odt
admission. Perused the papers on record.
2. Impugned in this Writ Petition filed under Articles - 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, is the order dated 08.06.2020
passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee invaliding the
petitioner's claim towards Rajput Bhamta, V.J. - A.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioner
that though the documents submitted before the Respondent No. 2 -
Scrutiny Committee support the Petitioner's claim of Rajput Bhamta,
Respondent No. 2 - Committee invalidated it on the ground that the
document of the petitioner's father was of recent period and during the
hearing the petitioner could not establish his claim. He further
submitted that in the parental blood relation of the petitioner, validities
are issued. He further submitted that at the relevant time when
Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee was dealing with the
petitioner's claim, the petitioner was of tender age and had submitted
the genealogy without consulting his father or the elder family member,
which was found to be incorrect. He further submitted that this Court in
Writ Petitions No.1861, 1862, 1871, 2006 and 2008 of 2012 vide order
dated 30.03.2012 and in Writ Petition No. 4842 of 2012 by order dated
24.07.2014 directed the concerned Scrutiny Committees to issue tribe
validity certificates of Rajput Bhamta to the blood relatives of the
3 6781.2020wp..odt
petitioner. He further submitted that in view of the material on record,
the petition be allowed.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP that the Respondent
No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the claim as the
petitioner could not prove the same by placing on record cogent
material. He further submitted that the petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of the papers on record show that the petitioner had
submitted two genealogies before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny
Committee, which do not perfectly match. The vigilance report in the
petitioner's matter is dated 08.08.2019, which shows that enquiy was
conducted with the school of petitioner's father and the entry as 'Rajput
Bhamta' was found in the school record. It further shows that the
enquiry was made with the villagers. The impugned order shows that
in the school record of the petitioner's father the entry was Rajput "Bha"
and the same was in a different ink and handwriting and therefore, the
Respondent No. 2 - Committee noted that it was not genuine. Whereas,
there is a substance in the contention of the petitioner that the vigilance
report nowhere states that the entry in school record as 'Rajput Bha' was
in a different ink and handwriting. The Scrutiny Committee discarded
the validity certificate of Rajeshwar Narhari Dahe, which was submitted
by the petitioner in support of his claim by observing that the petitioner
4 6781.2020wp..odt
could not establish blood relation with the said person. At the same
time, according to the petitioner, this Court in the above referred
matters has directed issuance of validity certificates to his blood relatives
and the same are discarded.
6. Considering the overall aspects of the matter, as indicated
above, we are of the considered view that the petitioner can be
relegated to the Respondent No. 2 - Committee for re-examining his
claim in accordance with the law by giving opportunity to him as
contemplated in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rules made thereunder.
Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 08.06.2020 passed by the Respondent
No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee is directed to
re-examine the petitioner's claim of 'Rajput Bhamta' (V.J.-A) in
accordance with the law by giving appropriate opportunity to the
5 6781.2020wp..odt
petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No. 2 -
Scrutiny Committee on 18.12.2023 and the Respondent No.2 shall
decide the petitioner's claim within a period of four (04) months
thereafter.
(v) The interim protection granted vide order dated 05.10.2020 to
continue for a period of four (04) weeks or till the Respondent No.2 -
Scrutiny Committee decides the proposal, whichever is earlier.
7. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE JUDGE
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 16:01:16
