Bombay High Court
Akash S/O Kailash Mankar vs The S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 5 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:3606-DB
6-wp3819.24.odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3819 OF 2024
Akash S/o Kailash Mankar,
Aged 36 years, Occu.NIL,
R/o Ravi Nagar, Near Santaji Nagar,
Akola, Tah. & Dist. Akola. ......PETITIONER.
-VERSUS-
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Member/Secretary,
Bhatkuli Road, Amravati,
District Amravati.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. ......RESPONDENTS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Rajashree S. Kabra, Adv. h/f Mr. S. D. Khati, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, AGP for the respondents- State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 5th APRIL, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petition questions the order dated 22/02/2024 passed by
respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Officer, thereby rejecting the petitioner's
KHUNTE
6-wp3819.24.odt
application for the grant of a caste certificate, which was confirmed by
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 03/05/2024. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the
genealogical tree and submits that the validity certificate was issued in
favour of the petitioner's uncle, Vikas, and therefore, the petitioner is also
entitled to get a caste certificate. However, the respondent No.2-Sub-
Divisional Officer, as well as the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee,
have not considered the said fact and erred in rejecting the claim of the
petitioner on the ground that no vigilance enquiry was conducted at the
time of issuance of the validity to the uncle of the petitioner. Therefore,
he urges allowing the petition.
4. The learned A.G.P. has not disputed the proposition of law that the
respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to make a
detailed enquiry of the claim of the petitioner and, therefore, submitted to
pass the appropriate order.
5. We have appreciated the submissions and have perused the
impugned orders and record.
6. It is a settled position of law that the Competent Authority under
Section 4 Act of 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
KHUNTE
6-wp3819.24.odt
of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ( for short, "Act of 2000") read with Rule 4
of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short " Rules of 2012"), while
issuing a caste certificate, is not empowered to make a detailed enquiry as
to the validity of the claim of the petitioner of belonging to ' Koli Mahadeo'
Scheduled Tribe.
7. At the outset, it is revealed that the respondents have not
disputed the genealogical tree or the relationship between the petitioner
and his uncle. It further appears that the petitioner's uncle, Vikas, holds
the validity certificate; therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to obtain a
caste certificate. Thus, it is evident that the finding recorded in the
impugned order is contrary to the settled position of law.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Competent
Authority has gone into the question of the validity of the claim of the
petitioner, which is impermissible in law. Thus, it seems that the
Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction while refusing to grant a
caste certificate to the petitioner. Similar is the position in respect of the
order dated 03-5-2024 passed by the respondent No.1-Committee. The
respondent No.1-Committee has neither considered the validity granted in
favour of the petitioner's uncle Vikas in its proper perspective, nor
considered the documents of the year 1953 pertaining to the petitioner's
father in its proper perspective.
KHUNTE
6-wp3819.24.odt
9. Apart from this, the position in this matter is no longer res integra,
but it is covered by the judgment of this Court in Namdeo s/o Baburao
Ingale and others v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati (2015) (ii) Mh.L.J. 707 and followed by various decisions, in view
of which, the impugned orders dated 22-02-2024 and 03-5-2024 are not
sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 22/02/2024 passed by the
respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola and the order dated
03/05/2024 passed by the respondent No.1-Committee are hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2-Competent Authority is
directed to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI,J) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
KHUNTE
Date: 07/04/2025 14:47:15
