Parvati Dattatray Kumbhar vs Committee For Scrutiny Of Caste ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2076 Bom

Shubham Talle                             1/11                            906-WP-433-2022-doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                            WRIT PETITION No. 433 OF 2022

Parvati Dattatray Kumbhar,
Age : 51 years, Occ. Social Service,
R/at: Nrusinhwadi, Taluka Shirol,
District Kolharpur.                                    ....Petitioner

          Versus

1.        Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Claims,
          Kolhapur, having its office at Kolhapur,
          Through its Member Secretary.

2.        Ramesh Prakash Sutar,
          Age : 50 years, Occ. Social Service,

3.        Chetan Chandrakant Gawali,
          Age : 50 years, Occ. Social Service,

          Both Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
          R/at: Nrusinhwadi, Taluka Shirol,
          District Kolharpur.                          ....Respondents


                                         *****
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. B.R. Mandlik for the Petitioner .
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke - AGP for Respondent Nos. 1/State
Mr. Vijay D. Patil i/by. Mr. Yogesh Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                                         *****

                                 CORAM     :     R. D. DHANUKA
                                                 M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
                       RESERVED ON         :     9th February, 2023
                     PRONOUNCED ON         :     2nd March, 2023




  ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2023 16:38:42 :::
 Shubham Talle                           2/11                              906-WP-433-2022-doc




                      : JUDGMENT (PER : M. M. SATHAYE, J.):

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives

service for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Patil, waives service for Respondent

Nos.2 and 3. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.

2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned

judgment and order dated 17th December, 2021 passed by the Respondent

No.1 (Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur) invalidating the Petitioner's

caste claim and for direction to issue caste validity certificate in favour of

the Petitioner.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to caste Kumbhar,

which is Other Backward Class (OBC). It is contended that in January,

2020, the elections for village Panchayat of Nrusinhwadi, Taluka Shirol,

District Kolhapur were held and the Petitioner contested the said election

for the post of Sarpanch and she was elected as Sarpanch. It is contended

that the Petitioner had contested the said election on the basis of her caste.

The caste certificate was sent for verification to the Respondent No.1.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the complainants who contested the

Petitioner's claim of caste Kumbhar. The Vigilance Cell was directed to

Shubham Talle 3/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

conduct enquiry and a report dated 22nd September, 2021 came to be

submitted by Vigilance Cell to the Respondent No. 1.

4. It is contended that the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee

conducted hearing wherein both the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and

3 filed documents and affidavits in support of their case and after

considering the same along with the Vigilance Cell report, by the

impugned Order dated 17th December, 2021, the Respondent No.1 has

invalidated the Petitioner's caste claim.

5. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the

documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her case have not

been properly considered by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. He

contended that the Vigilance Cell Report is discarded by the Respondent

No.1 Scrutiny Committee without giving any reasons. He has invited our

attention to various documents produced by Petitioner in support of her

case.

6. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the

complainants/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contended that whether the

Petitioner is really a daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, as asserted by

her, is under serious dispute. He contended that the Petitioner's family

Shubham Talle 4/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

belongs to Village Kurni, Taluka Hukkeri of Belagavi which is in Karnataka

State and as such Petitioner was not resident of Maharashtra at the time of

her birth and as such, she is not entitled to caste benefits here. According

to them, the real name of Petitioner's father is Basavanni Lagamappa

Kumbhar, who was resident of Karnataka State and not Maharashtra State.

He contended that both the aspects of caste and place of origin of the

Petitioner's family, are under serious challenge. He also invited our

attention to various documents produced by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3

opposing the Petitioner's caste claim.

7. Ms. Solunke, learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1 supported

the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. She contended that the

there are obvious contradictions in the evidence produced by the

Petitioner. She has relied upon a Judgment of this Court pronounced on

10.03.2021 in W. P .No. 1322 of 2020 in similar set of facts, wherein caste

claim was rejected.

REASONS & CONCLUSIONS

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record carefully. It is settled position of law that the Vigilance Cell Report

is not evidence of caste per se and though it has persuasive value, the

same is not binding upon the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, there is

Shubham Talle 5/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

duty cast upon the Scrutiny Committee to give reasons, if it rejects the

Vigilance Cell Report. In this backdrop, we proceed to scan various

documents produced by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 about

the Petitioner's claim and also the impugned Order, to ascertain if it has

recorded the reasons while discarding Vigilance Cell Report and whether it

warrants any interference.

9. At the outset, it must be noted that the Petitioner has claimed her

caste on the premise that she is daughter of Shri. Basappa Virupax

Kumbhar, who, according to Petitioner, was resident of Kurandwad,

Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. In the light of this assertion, the

Complainants/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have raised an objection that

Petitioner is not a daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, but is daughter

of one Basavanni Lagamappa Kumbhar, who was resident of Karnataka

State and who expired in the same State and he was not a resident of

Maharashtra State. It is therefore, contended that the Petitioner, cannot

claim the benefit of caste in Maharashtra.

10. Now let us scan the documents on record, one by one.

(i) Petitioner has produced PAN Card in support of her case. Learned

AGP had produced the original file of the Caste Scrutiny Committee before

Shubham Talle 6/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

us and pointed out that the copy of said PAN Card shows the name of

Petitioner's father as Basappa Lagamappa Kumbhar and not Basappa

Virupax Kumbhar.

(ii) The Petitioner has relied upon a Gazette Notification for change of

her name from Kumari Parvati Basvanni Kumbhar to Parvati Dattatray

Kumbhar which is her present name, after marriage. It is not explained by

the Petitioner how her name was changed form Parvati Basvanni

Kumbhar, if she is daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar.

(iii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have produced Bonafide Certificate issued

by the Headmaster of Government K.H.P.S. School Taluka Hukkeri,

District Chikodi, in the State of Karnataka showing name of Petitioner as

Parvati Basvanni Kumbhar, in which her caste is shown as "Hindu

Lingayat" and not "Kumbhar". Perusal of Petitioner's statement /affidavit

dated 30th March, 2021 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, shows that

Petitioner has admitted in paragraph No. 4 that in said School Certificate,

which according to her, is issued at her maternal village, the caste of the

Petitioner is shown as "Hindu Lingayat" and not "Kumbhar".

(iv)      Perusal of Birth Certificate of Petitioner shows her name as Parava





 Shubham Talle                          7/11                              906-WP-433-2022-doc

Basavanni Kumbhar daughter of Basavanni Lagamappa Kumbhar R/o

Kurni Village, born on 29.12.1969 (after deemed date 13.10.1967) and

the same is issued by the Government of Karnataka from Birth and Death

Register of Yadgud Village, Tal. Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka.

(v) Perusal of Death Certificate of Basavanni Lagamappa Kumbhar R/o

Kurniwadi shows that he died on 27.05.2003 (after deemed date) at

Kurniwadi and it is issued by Government of Karnataka from Birth and

Death Register of Kurni Village, Tal. Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi, Karanataka.

(vi) Petitioner has produced voters list of Village Kurundwad, which is a

place claimed to be Petitioner's native place in the State of Maharashtra. It

shows that the name of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar appears singularly

without any children of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, in list. This lends

credence to the objection of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that Basappa

Virupax Kumbhar is not father of the Petitioner, but the Petitioner is

setting up a false claim of being his daughter to bring her claim within

caste benefits in the State of Maharashtra.

(vii) Petitioner claimed that her father Basappa Virupaxi Kumbhar,

had land at Village Kurundwad, bearing Survey No. 111/6 which is

Shubham Talle 8/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

subsequently converted to Gat No. 459. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have

produced an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Kurandwad dated 20th November, 2013, under which 3 ladies claiming to

be legal heirs of Basappa Virupax Kumbar, have obtained succession

certificate after his death.

(viii) Perusal of proceedings produced by Respondent Nos.2 and 3,

at page nos.181 to 187 of the Petition, shows that 3 ladies Shalan Maruti

Kumbar, Sunanda Suresh Kumbar and Mahadevi Shivaji Kumbar have

applied for succession certificate, as distant legal heirs of deceased

Basappa Virupax Kumbar, who according to them died "issue-less". It

further appears from the said record that news-paper publication was

made and after following due process, order was passed in favour of said 3

ladies. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also produced 7/12 extract of Gat

No. 459 at Village Kurandwad, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur in which,

the name of Basappa Kumbar was removed by M. E. No. 10380 and names

of these 3 ladies were mutated in his place. This mutation entry is dated

23/01/2014 and same is duly certified.

11. There is merit in the submission of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that if

Basappa Kumbar was really Petitioner's father, it cannot be believed that

she had no knowledge about such succession certificate being issued to

Shubham Talle 9/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

distant relatives and even their names being mutated in the revenue

record of his agricultural property, as far back as in 2014. If Petitioner was

really daughter of said Basappa Kumbar, it is unbelievable that Petitioner

would not take any steps against the said order of succession certificate or

said mutation entry, for a long time. Mr. Patwardhan submits that

Petitioner has now challenged the said heirship certificate. However this

belated action is of no use to advance the case of the Petitioner, because it

is taken after Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 brought the said heirship

proceedings on record.

12. It is also Petitioner's case that her father's property bearing Survey

No. 111/6 which is subsequently converted to Gat No. 459 is situated in

series of lands bearing Survey No. 111/1 to 11 which are Kumbhar Inam

lands and she has therefore relied upon caste certificate of one Komal

Popat Kumbhar. First of all, it has not come on record how Komal Popat

Kumbhar or other land holders around the land allegedly belonging to the

Petitioner's father, are related to her. In view of the fact that the

Petitioner's claim of being daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, itself

seems to be full of contradictions, land of said Basappa Virupax Kumbhar

and case of adjoining land holders' caste cannot have any bearing on the

Petitioner's claim.

Shubham Talle 10/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

13. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments of Respondents that the

evidence produced by the Petitioner herself is contradictory. There is no

valid explanation for these obvious contradictions.

14. We have perused the order of this Court pronounced on 10 th March,

2021 in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 2020, passed in the almost identical

situation. Petitioner therein claimed to be belonging to "Hindu Nhavi"

caste and there also, complainant had objected that she was born in

Karnataka State and her father was also a permanent resident thereof,

who lived there till his death and therefore, the Petitioner therein is not

entitled to claim caste benefit in Maharashtra State. In that case, Division

Bench of this Court, having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner,

whose family was not residing at Maharashtra on deemed date, cannot

derive in benefits from the State of Maharashtra.

15. In the background of above facts and circumstances, after

considering the documents on record, perusal of the impugned Order

shows that, all these documents and arguments are considered in detail by

the Scrutiny Committee by discussing documents in tabular form and in

conclusion para Nos. 1 to 9, after recording legal and valid reasons for

Shubham Talle 11/11 906-WP-433-2022-doc

rejecting the Vigilance Cell Report. In that view of the matter, we do not

find any perversity or apparent illegality in the impugned order passed by

Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee.

16. The Petition is thus devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)

17. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks continuation

of ad-interim relief existing in favour of the Petitioner today. Ad-interim

relief which is already granted, to continue for four weeks.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)                                   (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)