Bombay High Court
Pradnya Shahaji Kadu vs State Of Maharashtra (Thr Prin. ... on 14 July, 2025
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:30860-DB 4-WP-1956-2025.doc
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2025
Pradnya Shahaji Kadu ] Petitioner
Vs
State of Maharashtra, Through Principal ]
Secretary, Rural Development Department ]
Mantralaya Mumbai and others ] Respondents
.....
Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate i/b Jagdish G. Reddy a/w Ms. Ashwini Jadhav, for Petitioner.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, A.G.P, for Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.J.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2025.
P.C:
1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the following substantive reliefs:
"(a) Record and proceedings of the case, be kindly called for.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 (on Application No. EL-2023-00158390) passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the effect that she belongs to "Kunbi caste", which is recognized as OBC and listed at Sr.No.83.
(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction under Article - 226 of Constitution of India holding that the Petitioner belongs to "Kunbi caste"
caste which is recognized as OBC and listed at Sr. No.83 and to that effect direct the Respondent No.2 District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune to issue Caste Validity Certificate 1 of 10 SHAILAJA Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE SHRIKANT Date: 2025.07.24 10:51:13 HALKUDE +0530 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc in favour of Petitioner within time bound schedule of 4 weeks from the date of order of this Hon'ble Court.
(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court, be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 (on Application No.EL-2023-00158390) passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee,Pune, invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the effect that she belongs to "Kunbi caste".
(e) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court, be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 01, 03 to 05 not to act upon the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 (on Application No.EL-2023-00158390) passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the effect that she belongs to "Kunbi caste".
2. Mr. Patil, the learned Senior Advocate representing the Petitioner, assailed the order of the caste scrutiny committee on essentially two grounds.
First, that the caste scrutiny committee did not consider certain documents of the Petitioner and the second, that the impugned order also did not give adequate reasons for disregarding the vigilance committee report.
3. Firstly, Mr. Patil contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider certain documents which the Petitioner submitted after the proceedings were closed. It is useful in this context to reproduce the case in this regard as pleaded in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Petition, wherein the Petitioner has pleaded thus :
"18. In pursuant to the said order of learned SDO dated 20.01.2020 the name of the Petitioner was entered in the Revenue record as legal heir 2 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc of Shahaji Shivram Kadu. On the basis of the aforementioned documents, the Petitioner prepared a fresh affidavit of family tree. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-DD is a copy of said 2 nd affidavit of family tree of the Petitioner And, as per the liberty granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee while closing the matter for orders, the Petitioner tried to submit all the above mentioned documents by letter dated 13.12.2024 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee along with an application but the learned Committee refused to take all the said documents as well as the application of the Petitioner for taking on record the said documents and informed the Petitioner that the matter is closed for orders and now they can't accept and take on record any documents Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-EE is a copy of said letter of the Petitioner dated 13.12.2024 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for placing the additional documents on record.
19. The Petitioner states that even though the Petitioner had voluminous record of pre-independence era and the Petitioner tried to submit the same in view of the liberty granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee with oral directions while closing the matter for orders, the learned Committee refused to allow the Petitioner to place the said documents on record and thus without granting proper opportunity to the Petitioner to place and relied upon documents on record, the Committee by impugned Order, dated 23.12.2024 rejected /invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner that the Petitioner belongs to Kunbi caste which is recognized as OBC in the State of Maharashtra, only on the ground that the Petitioner has not produced on record the documents to establish relationship with Rama Genu Kadu and Lakshman Genu Kadu and falsely relied upon the documents submitted by the Respondent No.6 Complainant in respect of Zura Genu Kadu. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-FF is a copy of impugned order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner".
4. The next ground on which the order of the caste scrutiny committee is assailed by Mr. Patil is that the caste scrutiny committee has in the impugned order failed to give adequate reasons for disregarding the vigilance committee report. Mr. Patil placed reliance upon a decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam vs. State of Maharashtra and 3 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc others1 to submit that the failure to record reasons for disregarding the report of the vigilance cell by the caste scrutiny committee would render the order passed by the scrutiny committee untenable. It was on the basis of these two grounds that Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned order was required to be set aside and the matter be remitted back for reconsideration by the caste scrutiny committee of the material which the Petitioner sought to place reliance upon.
5. Having heard Mr. Patil, and having carefully perused the material before us, we find this Petition to be one which is entirely devoid of any merit, and one which deserves to be dismissed in limine for the following reasons.
6. The impugned order is a detailed order, a plain reading of which makes clear that the caste scrutiny committee considered all the materials submitted, including the vigilance committee report. It is appropriate that the reasons as rendered by the caste scrutiny committee are noted. Office translation of relevant extract of the impugned order reads thus;
[Office Translation of the Impugned order] "4. The proof mentioned at Sr.No. 4 is an extract in Modi script from Village Form No.14 maintained at village Kuran Bu., Tal. Velhe, District Pune, in the name of father Rama, son of Genu Kadu and its transliteration in Marathi (Devnagari) Script. In the said extract, there is an entry about the death of the son of the father Rama, son of Genu Kadu on the date 23.04.1915 and in the column of caste, there is an entry of caste viz. Kunabi whereas, the proof mentioned at Sr.No. 5 is an extract in Modi script from 1 2017 (2) Mh. L.J. 4 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc Village Form No.14 maintained at village Kuran Bu., Tal. Velhe, District Pune in the name of father Laxman, son of Genu Kadu and its transliteration in Marathi (Devnagari) Script. In the said extract, there is an entry about the death of the son of the father Laxman, son of Genu Kadu on the date 04.04.1929 and in the column of caste, there is an entry of caste viz. Kunabi.
The Applicant has filed an Affidavit in respect of Genealogy to the effect that both the said persons having proofs are the grandfathers of the paternal cousin brothers of the Applicant's father. However, in order to prove the relation with the said persons having proofs, the Applicant has not submitted any revenue related proof to show that Zurya Genu Kadu, the great grand father of the Applicant is the real brother of Rama Genu Kadu and Laxman Genu Kadu and only with an intention to take disadvantage of the similarity in the names, the Applicant has submitted both the above-mentioned proofs. As both the persons having proofs are not the relatives by blood from Applicant's father's side, both the said proofs are not useful as substantial proofs in the claim of caste submitted by the Applicant.
5. The proof mentioned at Sr. No. 6 is the transliteration in Marathi (Devnagari) Script, of an extract in Modi script from Village Form No.14 maintained at village Kuran Bu., Tal. Prachandgad, District Pune in the name of Sari, daughter of Zura Genu Kadu and in the said extract, there is an entry to the effect that father Zura Genu Kadu begot a daughter by name Sari, on the date 10.07.1928 (Year 1338 Fasali) and in the column of caste, there is an entry viz. 'Ma.', whereas, the proof mentioned at Sr.No.7 is the transliteration in Marathi (Devnagari) Script of an extract in Modi Script, from Village Form No.14 maintained at village Kuran Bu., Tal. Prachandgad, District Pune in the name of Genu, son of Zura son of Genu Kadu and in the said extract, there is an entry to the effect that father Zura Genu Kadu begot a son by name Genu, on the date 20.08.1932 (Year 1342 Fasali) and in the column of caste, there is an entry viz. 'Marathi'.
The Complainant has submitted both the said proofs and both the said proofs stand in the name of Zura Genu Kadu, the real great grandfather of the Applicant. As both the said proofs are very old, 5 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc it has the highest evidentiary value. However, in both the aforesaid proofs, there is an entry of caste as 'Maratha', both the said proofs are going against the Applicant.
6. The proof mentioned at Sr.No.8 is the Genealogy given in the Affidavit dated 06.10.2023 executed by the Applicant. However, the Applicant has not proved the Genealogy submitted by her vide the said Affidavit, on the basis of supporting proof and thus, it has been proved before the Committee that the Applicant has submitted said Genealogy only with an intention to take disadvantage of the similarity in the names.
7. The proof at Sr.No.9 is an Affidavit dated 06.10.2023 executed by the Applicant mentioning therein that the documents submitted by her together with her claim, have been obtained from the Competent Authority and that the same have been obtained in authentic and appropriate manner.
On taking into consideration, the explanation in respect of the proofs mentioned at Sr.No. 1 to 9, below-mentioned important aspects become clear.
A) The Committee has studied all the documents submitted by the Applicant. Similarly, the Committee has also studied the documents submitted by the Complainant in connection with the complaint filed in this matter.
The Applicant has filed a claim claiming therein that she belongs to to 'Kunabi' caste and has submitted two proofs showing the caste, issued prior to the deemed date. The one that has been submitted from out of the same is an extract of entry of birth of a male child born on the date 23.04.1915 to "Father Rama, Son of Genu Kadu", from Village Form No.14 i.e. Register of Births - Deaths maintained at village Kuran Bu., Tal. Velhe, District Pune wherein, the caste "Kunabi" has been mentioned in the column of Caste of "Father Rama, Son of Genu Kadu". The another one that has been submitted from out of the same is an extract of entry of birth of a male child born on the date 04.04.1929 to "Father Laxman, Son of Genu Kadu", from Village Form No.14 i.e. Register of Births - Deaths maintained at village 6 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc Kuran Bu., Tal. Velhe, District Pune wherein, the caste "Kunabi" has been mentioned in the column of Caste of "Father Laxman, Son of Genu Kadu" and on the basis of the said two entries, the Applicant is claiming that she belongs to the "Kunabi" caste. The entry of Births - Deaths under the subject, is in Modi Script and the Transliterator Shankar Bhambu Dhebe has transliterated the said entries in Devnagri script and has submitted an Affidavit to that effect.
(B) As per the genealogy submitted by the Applicant, it has been mentioned that, the persons by names "Rama s/o. Genu Kadu"
and "Laxman s/o. Genu Kadu" whose names have been mentioned in the aforesaid entry are the grandfathers of the paternal cousin brothers of the father of the Applicant. However, the Applicant has not submitted any heirship-mutation entry showing the names of "Rama Genu Kadu" and "Laxman Genu Kadu", the heirs of Genu Kadu, great-great-great grandfather of the Applicant and the name of "Zurya Genu Kadu", real great- grandfather of the Applicant, the original person of the family as mentioned in the genealogy, mentioned together. From this, it becomes clear that, the Applicant's great-grandfather by name 'Zurya Genu Kadu" is not the real brother of "Rama s/o. Genu Kadu" and "Laxman s/o. Genu Kadu".
(C) The Complainant has produced two proofs to the effect that the Applicant belongs to the Maratha caste. One of them is a copy of an extract from the Village Form No.14 - Register of Births and Deaths, maintained in Village - Kuran Budruk, Taluka - Prachandgad, District - Pune to the effect that "the father by name - Zura Genu Kadu" begot one female child (Sari) on the date 10.07.28. In this document, in the column of Caste, the caste of "the father - Zura Genu Kadu" has been mentioned as 'Ma.'. Similarly, the another proof is a copy of an extract from the Village Form No.14 - Register of Births and Deaths, maintained in Village - Kuran Budruk, Taluka - Prachandgad, District - Pune to the effect that "the father by name - Zura s/o. Genu Kadu" begot a male child (Genu) on the date 20.08.32. In this document, in the column of Caste, the caste of "the father - Zura s/o. Genu Kadu" has been mentioned as "Marathi". On the basis of these two entries, the Complainant has mentioned that the 7 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc Applicant belongs to the Caste "Maratha". The entries of the births and deaths mentioned under the subject have been recorded in 'Modi' Script and the same have been filed on the record after getting the transliteration thereof made in 'Devanagari Script' by the transliterator by name Nitin Balkrishna Sherekar.
(D) It has been proved hereinabove that the proofs showing the caste prior to the Deemed Date are not from the Applicant's family. Similarly, it has been proved hereinabove that the proofs showing the caste as 'Maratha' prior to the Deemed Date are from the Applicant's family. The Applicant does not have any proof showing her caste as 'Kunabi' and therefore, the Committee has come to the clear opinion that the Applicant has produced a forged and bogus genealogy to mislead the Committee and hence, the Committee takes a unanimous decision as under :
DECISION
1) The caste-claim of the Applicant Pradnya Shahaji Kadu that she belongs to the caste 'Kunabi' (Other Backward Class) is rejected and the Caste Certificate bearing Outward No. 41985100127, dated 06.02.2023 issued in the name of the Applicant by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Velhe, District - Pune is declared as 'INVALID' and the same is cancelled.
2) As the Caste Certificate of the Applicant Pradnya Shahaji Kadu to the effect that she belongs to the caste 'Kunabi' (Other Backward Class) has been declared as 'Invalid', all the benefits that she has availed on the basis of the said Caste Certificate are liable to be recovered as per the provisions of Section 10(1)(2)(4) of the Maharashtra Act No. 23/2001.
By taking the Decision as mentioned above, the matter of scrutiny into the Caste Certificate of the caste 'Kunabi' (Other Backward Class) of the Applicant is finally disposed of".
(emphasis supplied) 8 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc
7. Hence, it is clear that the Petitioner was only attempting to exploit a similarity in names, specifically that of the Petitioner's great-grandfather and did not have any genealogical basis to claim to belong to the 'Kunbi' caste.
8. The Petitioner's contention that the vigilance report was not considered placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam is not well founded. In the present case, the vigilance report does not support case of the Petitioner regarding the documents of " Bap Rama Bin Genu Kadu" and "Bap Lakshuman Bin Genu Kadu." In fact, the report indicates that these documents are not related to any of the Petitioner's relatives. The Vigilance Report records that documents related to " Bap Rama Bin Genu Kadu" and "Bap Lakshuman Bin Genu Kadu" were submitted, and their translation from Modi script to Marathi reflected their caste as "Kunbi" .
In the case of Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam (supra) as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, the vigilance report had findings in favour of the Petitioner and was not considered by the caste scrutiny committee. It was in that context that this Court inter alia held "...the Vigilance Cell inquiry is not a mere formality but it is meant to effectively assist the Committee in determining the caste claim. This is further substantiated by the requirement of the Rules for the Committee to give reasons before disregarding the Vigilance Cell report."
9. Further, and crucially we find from what is stated in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, that in fact no documents were submitted by the Petitioner. The 9 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 ::: 4-WP-1956-2025.doc Petitioner has clearly stated that "the Petitioner tried" to submit documents.
Hence, what we find from the material on record is that the Petitioner is attempting to revisit and reopen a concluded hearing. Such conduct cannot be permitted as it would set to naught the procedure laid down for the determination of caste scrutiny and keep the same open ended.
10. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, we find that the Petitioner has not made a case for interference. The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee has duly considered the submitted documents and involved a thorough decision-making process.
Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and is summarily rejected. No costs.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] [G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
10 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2025 02:21:41 :::