Neha Shivajirao Adbalwad v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary,

1 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc SAS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7476 OF 2018 Nisha d/o. Shivajirao Adbalwad ..Petitioner.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents.

WRIT PETITION NO.7508 OF 2018 Neha d/o. Shivajira Adbalwad ..Petitioner.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents.

Mr.Sunil M.Vibhate for the petitioner.

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Advocate General with Mr.A.B.Vagyani, G.P with Mr.C.P.Yadav, AGP for the respondents-State. Srikrishna Ananth Sharma Ananth Sharma Date: 2018.07.24 16:30:48 +0530

CORAM:

SHANTANU KEMKAR NITIN W.SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : JULY 23, 2018 P.C.:- With consent of the parties, heard and disposed of. 2.

Through these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have assailed the order dated June 30, 2018 passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad (Respondent No.2) in short "the Committee" whereby the Petitioners' claim for Tribe

2 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc validation have been rejected.

3.

The grievance of the petitioners is, though Caste Validity Certificate granted by the Committee in favour of their father Abdalwad Shivaji, real paternal uncles Madhav Maroti, Anandrao Maroti Abdalwad, cousin brother Yogesh Madhav and mother Manisha Sopanrao Marakwad was relied upon, the Committee has discarded the same on the ground that the same would not be conclusive proof and would not absolve the petitioners from discharging the burden of production of the relevant evidence. The Committee also took a view that these certificates have been granted to these persons without taking into account the interpolations / adverse entries in the documents, on which reliance was placed at the time of issuance of those validity certificates by its holders. It is stated by the respondents-State that appropriate show cause notices have already been issued to these caste validity certificate holders.

4.

According to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, the decision runs contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s

3 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others1, which was based upon the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave v/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others2. So also in the case of Anand V/s. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others3 5.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) in paragraph Nos.7 and 9 observed thus :- "7.

We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.

9.

In the present case, we find that the committee has disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving certificate of Petitioner's father and noticing that the original caste written on it was 'Thakur' and that was subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat. The committee observed that the caste has been changed without complying with the procedure prescribed by section 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact, the caste has 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401 (2008) 9 SCC 54 (2012) 1 SC.C.113

4 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From the findings of the committee it appears that the committee has observed that the change of caste has been one illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant validity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion.

The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent cast claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order.

In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the Petitioner."

6.

The learned Government Pleader submits that since some interpolation is noticed in the school record of the petitioners paternal uncles namely, Madhav Maroti Abdalwad and Ramkishan Maroti Abdalwad, Anandrao Maroti Abdalwad and mother Manisha Sopanrao Marakwad, the Committee has issued show cause notice to the paternal uncles and mother. We find that the Committee has not recorded specific findings as regard

5 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc possibility of some interpolation. Be that as it may, we have noticed that the petitioners' paternal uncles and mother have been granted caste validity certificates. Thus, in our considered view, the reason assigned by the Committee for rejection of the claim of petitioners cannot be sustained as it runs contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra).

7.

In the circumstances, in the light of the judgment in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale, Anand V/s. Committee and Raju Ramsing Vasave (supra), the petitioner be granted caste validity certificate forthwith. However, the issuance of the certificate shall be subject to the outcome of the show cause notices issued which has been issued against the father Abdalwad Shivaji, real paternal uncles Madhav Maroti, Anandrao Maroti Abdalwad, cousin brother Yogesh Madhav and mother Manisha Sopanrao Marakwad of the petitioner by the Committee as the caste validity certificates issued to them is found to be based on interpolation / adverse entries. 8.

In view of above, the Committee is directed to issue

6 210-226) wp7476-18+1.doc Tribe validity certificate to the petitioners forthwith. As the Committee has aready initiated proceedings for cancellation of caste validity issued to the blood relations of the petitioners, in response to the Courts' query, it is assured by the Committee that the Committee will conclude those proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the proceedings for cancellation of caste validity holders are answered against such caste certificate holders, it shall be open for the respondent Committee to issue show cause notice to the petitioners as to why the validity certificates granted to her should not be cancelled and it will be open for the Committee to take those proceedings to its logical end. Needless to say that the certificates issued to the petitioners is subject to the outcome of the proceedings for cancellation of validity issued in favour of her blood relations.

9.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)