High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 6876 / 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6876 OF 2024Samiksha Umeshsinh JanakwarAge : 19 years, Occu. StudentR/o. At Post Mandwa,Tq. Vashi, Dist. Dharashiv (Osmanabad) .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai2] The District Caste Scrutiny Committee Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik Nay Bhavan, Near Central Administrative Building, Dharashiv (Osmanabad) .. Respondents…Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitionerMr. N.D. Batule, AGP for respondent - State... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 12 AUGUST 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Petitioner is challenging the order of the respondent -scrutiny committee refusing to validate her ‘Rajput Bhamta’ (VJA)certificate.2. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. LearnedAGP waives service. 2 WP / 6876 / 2024 3. Considering the urgency, the matter is heard finally at thestage of admission.4.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner has been relying upon the pre-constitutional revenue recordof her ancestors. The vigilance report did not indicate about any doubtin respect of her relationship with those individuals and still thecommittee has refused to consider it stating that the relationship wasnot established. It has not assigned any reason to reach such aconclusion.5. The learned advocate would further submit that thepetitioner was also relying upon validity of one Virendra VitthalsinghJanakwar. The vigilance officer had an occasion to undertake scrutinyeven in that respect and in the report had expressly observed thatgoing by the genealogy, Virendra was related to the petitioner by bloodbut again without assigning any reason, the committee discarded thisstating that there was no corroborative material to establish therelationship. 6.He would further submit that without even indicatinganything and even in spite of the observations in the vigilance reportaccepting the relationship between the petitioner and Virendra, thecommittee has refused to consider it by making this perfunctoryobservation in the final order. Had the petitioner been aware, she
Legal Reasoning
3 WP / 6876 / 2024 could have made efforts to satisfy the committee. It was stabbing inthe back and would be contrary to Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtraand others; (2009) 10 SCC 268. He would submit that in view of suchstand of the committee, the petitioner has filed affidavit of validityholder - Virendra together with the genealogy which tallies with thegenealogy being relied upon by him in his own matter. 7. Lastly, Mr. Bayas would submit that in fact, the committeehad decided to issue certificate of validity to the petitioner. It had alsoprepared an order, a copy of which is placed in this petition at pageno. 77. The Member Secretary and a Member had signed that orderbut the Chairman did not sign it and subsequently, the impugned orderhas been passed. He would submit that by virtue of rule 9 of the Rulesframed under the Act XXIII of 2001, the decisions of the committeeshould be by majority and even if the Chairman had not signed theorder, it was a decision and order in law, and the impugned order beinginconsistent with the earlier order, is a nullity.8. The learned AGP would support the order. He would try toimpress upon us that the vigilance was conducted and the committeehas recorded the reasons by taking a plausible view. In the absence ofcorroborating evidence, the committee could not have relied upon thevalidity of Virendra and the petition be dismissed. 4 WP / 6876 / 2024 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to note that admittedly, in thevigilance enquiry, the revenue record of Chhagansinh Lalsinh andHirasinh Lalsinh was collected and the vigilance officer had notdoubted these individuals being related to the petitioner by blood. Itappears that subsequently, a fresh enquiry was ordered in respect ofthis revenue record and the vigilance officer mentioned in the reportthat the relationship could not be established between the petitionerand these individuals on the basis of revenue record which was ofFasli period of the pre-constitutional time and which was in Modi scriptof which translation was collected. 11.Irrespective of the observation of the committee and that ofthe vigilance officer in the subsequent report, we have been madeavailable the original file of validity holder - Virendra. Incidentally, hewas also relying upon the same revenue record. It was in Modi scriptand its translated copies are also available therein wherein theseindividuals have been described as ‘Rajput Bhamta’. 12. The genealogy produced by the petitioner and the one filedby Virendra in his own matter and again filed in the present petitiontogether with his affidavit, clearly demonstrate the relationship not onlybetween him and the petitioner but also would demonstrate these very 5 WP / 6876 / 2024 individuals whose Fasli record is being relied upon, as the ancestors ofboth of them i.e. petitioner and Virendra. 13.In the light of such state-of-affairs, the observations of thecommittee brushing aside this pre-constitutional revenue record andeven the validity of Virendra in one line, refusing to treat them for wantof corroborative evidence, is clearly perverse and arbitrary.14. Even if the committee was of such a view, it ought to haveexpressed so to the petitioner, so that she could have made an attemptto remove the doubt in the minds of the members of the committee. When the vigilance report was not hinting at any doubt in respect of therelationship between Virendra and the petitioner, observations of thecommittee in refusing to entertain his validity, seeking corroboration,would be stabbing the petitioner in back. Such an approach would beinconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter ofSayanna (supra). 15. Be that as it may, the observations and the conclusions ofthe committee entertaining doubt about the blood relationship betweenChhagansinh Lalsinh and Hirasinh Lalsinh and the petitioner andvalidity holder - Virendra and the petitioner, is clearly perverse, arbitraryand capricious. 6 WP / 6876 / 2024 16. As far as the birth record of one Kundanbai Pratapsinh, thereal sister of petitioner’s paternal grandfather of the year 1960, thecommittee has observed that the words ‘Rajput Bhamta’ have beeninserted in a different ink at some later point of time. However, theoriginal file of the petitioner made available merely contains a blackand white photocopy of the original register. 17.We have not been made available its coloured copy so asto objectively scrutinize the observations of the committee. Theimpugned order clearly demonstrates that even the committee had nottaken pains to call for the original record to cross-check whether theobservations of the vigilance officer that word ‘Bhamta’ was addedsubsequently in a different ink, is factually correct or otherwise, albeit,the impugned order mentions that on 01-07-2022, the committee haddirected the original record to be called. It is thus apparent that thecommittee has relied upon the observations of the vigilance officerwhen it was imperative for it to have examined the original record.18. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that theobservation of the scrutiny committee even in this respect is arbitraryand capricious.19.So far as the allegations regarding the impugned orderbeing a nullity, indeed the committee had made up its mind and hadeven prepared an order earlier which was signed by two out of its three
Decision
7 WP / 6876 / 2024 members. According to rule 9 of the rules framed under MaharashtraAct No. XXIII of 2001, the decision of the committee could be bymajority. The earlier order which was in favour of the petitioner wassigned by two out of three members and would constitute a valid order.20.There is no explanation in the impugned order as to whyearlier order was simply ignored and fresh / impugned order waspassed, more so when it has no statutory power of review. In theabsence of which the impugned order being subsequent one wouldalso suffer from the vice of want of jurisdiction and would be a nullity. 21. The upshot, the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary andcapricious and is liable to be set aside.22. The petition is allowed partly.23. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.24. The committee shall immediately issue certificate ofvalidity to petitioner of ‘Rajput Bhamta’ (VJA).25.Rule is made absolute. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/