Bombay High Court
Ku. Payal D/O Ashok Garate vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny ... on 9 April, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
wp2901.18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2901 OF 2018
Ku. Payal d/o Ashok Garate,
aged 25 years, occupation -
Student of Final M.B.B.S.,
Government Medical College
& Hospital, Nagpur, presently
at Ladies Hostel No. 2,
Government Medical College,
Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. Scheduled Tribes Caste
Scrutiny Committee, through
its Member Secretary,
Chaprasipura, Amravati.
2. Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences, through its
Joint Registrar, Wani Road,
Nashik 422 004.
3. Government Medical College
& Hospital, Nagpur through
its Dean. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
Shri Abhijit Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
.....
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA JJ.
APRIL 09, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 :::
wp2901.18 2
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.P. Maldhure, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 Shri Abhijit Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
2. In this case, there is one validity existing in the family. It is granted to Hiraman Mukunda Garate, in the year 2006 by the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. The validity certificate shows that Hiraman's social status is of Scheduled Tribe "Mana". Hiraman is stated to be Great Grand Father of the petitioner from the paternal side. The relationship is not in dispute. But, this certificate is not relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee and treated as spurious on the ground that the validity order is without any reason. The Scrutiny Committee has drawn support from the observations of this Court in the case of Shweta Ramlal Ghunvat vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 25.11.2011. The relevant observations are quoted with approval in the impugned order. These observations indicate that they have been made by following the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 ::: wp2901.18 3 d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & Ors., reported at 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401. This would mean that we would have to consider the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & Ors., (supra), as this is the law which forms the foundation of observations made by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Ramlal Ghunvat vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra).
3. We have carefully gone through the judgment rendered in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & Ors., (supra). We could not come across any observations made in this judgment which lay down that if there is a validity certificate granted to one of the family members, such certificate cannot be acted upon for issuing validity certificate to another family member, if that validity certificate is not accompanied by any reasons. On the contrary, the observations made convey opposite connotation. It has been held that where the Committee has given a finding ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 ::: wp2901.18 4 about validity certificate, another Committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies and a merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. It is also clear that it would be altogether a different case if the subsequent committee upon examination of the validity certificate issued by the previous committee comes to the conclusion that the validity certificate being relied upon has been obtained by that person by fraud and only in such case that subsequent committee would not be bound by the previous validity certificate. The relevant observations of the Division Bench of this Court, as they appear in paragraph 9 of the judgment, are reproduced thus :
".... 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 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 caste claim to reject it. There is, however, ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 ::: wp2901.18 5 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."
4. It is clear that the Scrutiny Committee has committed an error of facts in law and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There is nothing available on record nor even any material is placed on record to show that the previous validity certificate was obtained by fraud. In fact, the record shows that the previous certificate has attained finality and there is also no doubt regarding the relationship between the present petitioner and Hiraman, who already holds the certificate of validity of his social status.
5. In the circumstances, we find that there is great substance in the petition and it deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. ::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 ::: wp2901.18 6 Respondent No. 1 is directed to issue certificate of validity to the petitioner, as the petitioner belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The prayer clause (4) made in the petition and prayer clause (1) made in the Civil Application (CAW) No. 1034 of 2019 are allowed.
6. Rule is made absolute in these terms. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 02:09:58 :::