Bombay High Court
Nilesh Samadhan Jadhv vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
908 CA 108 OF 2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2023
IN RAST/34374/2022 WITH RAST/34374/2022
NILESH SAMADHAN JADHV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRTARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shinde Balaji S.
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. M. N. Navandar
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATE : 28.03.2023
PER COURT :
Heard. The delay is condoned.
2. Heard the learned advocates even in respect of the review application.
The applicant claiming to be a 'Tokre Koli' scheduled tribe was disputing the
decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee refuting his claim which challenge
was turned town by our judgment and order dated 08.09.2022.
3. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that this Court
has relied upon some entries in respect of the near relations which were
showing them as 'Hindu Magaslela'. This Court in the decisions reproduced
in paragraph No. 5 of the order under review has specifically held that word
'Magaslela' need not be given importance. As far as the entries in respect of
the relations showing them to be 'Hindu Suryawanshi Koli' the learned
advocate submits that in the erstwhile State of Karveer the word
'Suryawanshi' was not being used to describe the caste of an individual. The
applicant requests for an opportunity to once again go back to the Scrutiny
Committee to substantiate these facts.
4. Obviously, this being a review the applicant is invoking the
908 CA 108 OF 2023.odt
extraordinary jurisdiction. The scope for scrutiny of the order under review
is limited and circumscribed by the provision of Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Accepting the arguments of the learned advocate for the
applicant at its face value, at the most, these arguments would be
appropriate in a proceeding challenging our order rather than compel us to
undertake a review.
5. A careful reading of the order under review, particularly paragraph
No. 8 demonstrates that the contrary entries of the relatives post the
Presidential order between 1956 and 1960 were showing them to be 'Hindu
Suryawanshi Koli' which falls under 'Other Backward Classes'. As far as the
other relatives who were born between 1957-1969 they were shown as
'Hindu Magaslela'. It was specifically noted that no attempt was made
either before the Scrutiny Committee or even before us to furnish some
explanation about such long standing inconsistent entries. We had also
recorded as to how the applicant tried to rely upon the validities of the
relatives from the maternal side and also was unable to prove the genealogy
and the relations with the validity holders.
6. Taking note of the fact that this Court was not supposed to sit in
appeal over the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the
aforementioned circumstances taken note of by the Scrutiny Committee
were found sufficient to justify the decision. We have simply demonstrated
that it was a plausible decision based on correct appreciation of the evidence
that was available to the committee.
7. There are no sufficient and cogent reasons to undertake a review.
8. The Review Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
