High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
101.WP-6203-2004.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 6203 Of 2004WithCivil Application No. 492 Of 2025AndCivil Application No. 2009 Of 20161.Dr. Deepak s/o Balasaheb KachaveAge : 28 years, Occupation-Service,R/o. Indewadi, Pokharni,Dist. Parbhani2.Vijaysingh s/o Balasaheb KachaveAge : 28 years, Occupation-Service,R/o as above. .. Petitioners Versus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary,Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad andVJ Caste Certificate Verification Committee,Divisional Social Welfare OfficeAurangabadThrough its Secretary.3.The Sub Divisional OfficerOffice of SDO at SailuSailu, Dist. Parbhani. 4.Zilla ParishadAurangabadThrough its Chief Executive Officer[1]
Legal Reasoning
101.WP-6203-2004.odt5.The Collector,CollectorateParbhani. .. Respondents****** Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Vikhyati Jain i/by Mr. Amol R. Joshi.* AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 : Mr. D.R. Korde* Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. S.M. Gunjkar holding forMr. Deelip Patil Bankar***** CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.. RESERVED ON : 03rd MARCH 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 12th MARCH 2025 FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :1.Heard finally.2.The Petitioners who are real brothers, are challenging judgment andorder dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating theirtribe certificates of Rajput Bhamta, Vimukta Jati. 3.Petitioners are relying on validity certificates of Baliram SakharamKachave dated 04.04.1986; Dilip Shivajirao Kachave dated 07.07.1993; SanjayKishan Kachave dated 09.04.1992; Anuja Ankush Kachave dated 26.09.2006;Adesh Akashrao Kachave dated 29.10.2020. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh submits that Baliram, Dilip and Sanjay were issued[2] 101.WP-6203-2004.odtwith validity certificates by erstwhile competent authorities, which is notchallenged. The Committee did not notice any fraud in the recordproduced by the Petitioners as well as the validities pressed into service. Avigilance inquiry was conducted in the matter. The school record of08.07.1972 of Petitioner No.2 indicating caste as Rajput Bhamta is the oldestrecord. 4.Learned Senior Counsel submits that findings recorded by theCommittee are perverse. The Committee arbitrarily discarded the validitiesissued prior to pronouncement of judgment of Supreme Court in thematter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, TribalDevelopment and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 94. It is further submitted that it isperversity to hold that evidence prior to 1971 was not produced. 5.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the followingjudgments :(i)Raju Vasave Vs. Mahesh Bhivapurkar(2008) 12 SCR 992(ii) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 113(iii)Gayatrilaxmi Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1996 (2) MhLJ 4002(iv) Apoorva Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,2010 (6) MhLJ 401(v) Sharmishtha Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.7053/2011[3] 101.WP-6203-2004.odt(vi)Asra Fatema d/o Zakir Ali Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.920/20216.Per contra, learned AGP would support impugned judgment andorder. He would submit that the validities which are pressed into service,are unreliable because they were not issued after following due procedureof law. In the matter of Baliram and Dilip, no vigilance inquiry wasconducted. The Committee has taken a reasonable and plausible view.Hence, no interference is called for. 7.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We havegone through the genealogy, wherein the names of the validity holders arefiguring. Learned AGP as well as the Committee did not express anyreservation for the relationship of the Petitioners with the validity holders.Petitioners have pressed into service validities of paternal side bloodrelatives. Baliram and Dilip were issued with validity certificates prior tocommencement of the Act. 8.We have gone through the order dated 04.04.1986 passed by theDivisional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, issuing certificate toBaliram Kachave. By a reasoned order, his appeal was allowed. The saiddecision was not challenged further. In pursuance of that decision, he wasissued with validity certificate. Similarly, Dilip was also issued with validitycertificate by considering the documentary evidence which can be reflectedfrom the record. His validity was also issued before the commencement of[4] 101.WP-6203-2004.odtthe Act. These validities were issued by the then competent authorities,whose jurisdiction is not challenged by the Respondents. That time act andstatutory procedure were not in force, but caste certificate verification wasregulated by prevalent norms or the policies.9.In the latest judgment of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC326, Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to when validity certificatecan be relied upon. If the validity certificate is issued by following dueprocedure of law, then that can be said to be corroborative. It is not thepurport of ratio of Supreme Court that validities issued prior toenforcement of act would render invalid. We, therefore, hold that validitiesof Baliram and Dilip support Petitioners’ claim.10.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendrra Deshmukh for the Petitionersrelied on the judgment of coordinate bench in the matter of SharmishthaThakur (supra). The following is the relevant extract : “6.It is in view of such state of affairs and the law, the impugned order expresslyrefusing to take cognizance and extend the benefit of the validity possessed by oneYashwant Maharu Pawar is clearly perverse and arbitrary. No dispute has been raisedby the committee about any relationship between the petitioner and YashwantMaharu Pawar and few other blood relatives, namely, Kalyani Bhagwat Pawar,Sunanda Babulal Pawar, which have been expressly referred to by the scrutinycommittee in the impugned order. The reason assigned by the committee not toextend the benefit of these validities is to the effect that those certificates ofvalidity were issued prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001,when the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil andanother Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others; (1997)5 SCC 437 was holding the field. The procedure of the Caste Scrutiny Committeesprior to coming into force of the Act was not streamlined. It was regulated byinstructions. The authorities were not experts and the orders passed by suchauthorities were not fitting in the legal framework.”[5] 101.WP-6203-2004.odt11.He also relied on judgment of Asra Fatema d/o Zakir Ali Ahmed(supra). Following is the relevant paragraph : “6.It is in view of such state of affairs and the law, the impugned order expresslyrefusing to take cognizance and extend the benefit of the validity possessed by oneYashwant Maharu Pawar is clearly perverse and arbitrary. No dispute has been raisedby the committee about any relationship between the petitioner and YashwantMaharu Pawar and few other blood relatives, namely, Kalyani Bhagwat Pawar,Sunanda Babulal Pawar, which have been expressly referred to by the scrutinycommittee in the impugned order. The reason assigned by the committee not toextend the benefit of these validities is to the effect that those certificates ofvalidity were issued prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001,when the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil andanother Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others; (1997)5 SCC 437 was holding the field. The procedure of the Caste Scrutiny Committeesprior to coming into force of the Act was not streamlined. It was regulated byinstructions. The authorities were not experts and the orders passed by suchauthorities were not fitting in the legal framework.”12.The view taken by the coordinate benches, we find that the validitiesof Baliram and Dilip cannot be discarded just because they were issued withvalidities prior to commencement of Act or prior to the judgment ofSupreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).13.There are other validity holders who are paternal side relatives likeAdesh, Anuja and Sanjay. It is contended that in case of Adesh, no vigilancewas conducted. Even if validity of Adesh is ignored considering earliervalidities, Petitioners cannot be deprived of same social status. Unlessearlier validities are revoked, Petitioners cannot be denied the benefit ofsocial status. 14.Next reliance is placed on Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny andVerification of Tribe Claims and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 113. We have gone[6] 101.WP-6203-2004.odtthrough paragraph nos. 18 to 22. In view of ratio laid down in paragraphno.22, we accept the submissions of the Petitioners that affinity testconducted in the present matter is not decisive and cannot be a sole criteriato reject the claim. We are fortified by the latest judgment of the SupremeCourt in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti (supra).15.Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has also relied on thejudgment in the matter of Apoorva Nichale (supra). Considering theobservations of the Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 7 to 9, the validitiespressed into service in the present matter would enure to the benefit of thePetitioners. 16.Considering the record and the submissions of the parties, we findthat it is perversity for the Committee to invalidate the tribe certificate. Inthe wake of the validities of the blood relatives, the requirement ofdocumentary evidence of pre-constitutional period or period prior to 1971is not imperative. We find impugned judgment and order is unsustainable.We, therefore, pass following order :ORDER(i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii)Impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.(iii)The Respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificatesof Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati to the Petitioners forthwith. [7]
Decision
101.WP-6203-2004.odt(iv)Civil Applications stand disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGE najeeb..[8]