Pramod Govind Bastav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Sonawane, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents.

#3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

#4. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 8th September, 2011 in rejecting the Caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner asserts that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo which is notified as Scheduled SQ Pathan 2 Tribe in Maharashtra. In support of that claim, the petitioner has relied on several documents which are adverted to in the impugned decision. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the efficacy of those documents have not been analysed by the Committee in the impugned decision at all. As regards this grievance is concerned, even the learned A.G.P., in all fairness, accepts that the Committee has not specifically analysed the concerned documents referred to in paragraph 6 of the impugned decision. Mere making reference to the documents is not enough. The Committee was expected to analyse each of the document and after weighing the relevance in the context of the claim made by the petitioner, ought to have recorded finding one way or the other. Instead, the Committee by a sweeping observations in paragraph 7 merely observed that the documents cannot be treated as conclusive proof while determining the tribe claim of the applicant. The reason why that conclusion is reached has not been spelt out.

#5. What is intriguing to note is that the petitioner is relying on the decisions in the case of his blood relations but why those decisions should be discarded and not given benefit, has not been noted in the impugned SQ Pathan 3 decision. We also find force in the submission of the petitioner that if the Committee was not impressed by the documents, whether the petitioner ought to succeed on the basis of the affinity test, is a matter which the Committee ought to have addressed itself. No discussion is found in the impugned decision in that behalf.

#6. Suffice it to observe that the decision of the Committee cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. As in the case of the nephew of the petitioner Yatin Nilkanth Bastav v. The Executive Magistrate decided on 8th April, 2003, we have no option but to relegate this petitioner before the Committee for fresh consideration of his caste claim in accordance with law.

#7. We may place on record the argument canvassed by the petitioner, at the outset, that the petition can be disposed of by giving opportunity to the petitioner to make representation to the Appropriate Authority as was done in the case of Devidas Vitthalrao Bhonde vs. The Divisional Controller & Anr.1 by the Division Bench at Nagpur. The said decision makes reference to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kavita 1 WP No.2162/2012 decided on 4th October, 2012 SQ Pathan 4 Salunke vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2. The decision of the Apex Court in Kavita Salunke (supra) had no occasion to consider the efficacy of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Normadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdevi Gurunath Khedgikar v. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region & Ors.3 had occasion to consider this submission and has negatived the same. Even recently in the case of Nilam P.Putta vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik through Registrar & Ors.4, the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated that in case, the Caste claim is false, the question of ignoring the decision of the Committee invalidating the Caste claim does not arise as the mandate of Section 10 provides for consequential steps in such cases.

#8. Be that as it may, since the matter is now remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration of the caste claim of the petitioner, it is not necessary for us to elaborate on this question any further. 2 AIR 2012 SCW 4472 3 WP No.5624/2011 dated 5th March, 2012 4 WP No.2174/2012 SQ Pathan 5

#9. Petition partly succeeds. The impugned decision is set-aside. The application regarding issuance of Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadeo, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra be considered on its own merits in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from today. All questions in that behalf are left open.

#10. At this stage, Mr.Mendadkar submits that since the impugned decision is set-aside, as a necessary corollary, the petitioner ought to be reinstated in service and the petitioner be permitted to make representation to the Collector in that behalf. We are not inclined to accept this submission, inasmuch as, the petitioner will have to establish his caste claim and only upon validation thereof by the Committee, the petitioner can seek further relief of reinstatement in service.

#11. Petition disposed of accordingly. ( R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) SQ Pathan