The petitioner challenged the refusal by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate for 'Malhar Koli'. The committee noted manipulation in school records indicating the caste was originally recorded as 'Hindu Koli'. The court held the findings were not perverse.
The writ petition was rejected summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
Writ Petition No.3226 of 2006
Bhupendra Jagannath Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Petitioner
Respondents
Mr.R.K.Mendadkar and Mr.H.N.Mandlik for petitioner. Mr.R.D.Rane, Govt. Pleader for resp.nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ.
December 06, 2006.
P.C.
. When the petition was taken up for hearing on
| admission | on | 28/11/2006, | the | learned | couns | el for |
the |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| petitioner | sought | time | of | one | week | to | take |
| instructions | to | withdraw | the | petition | and | again | on |
| 5/12/2006 | adjournment | was | sought | which | was | granted | by |
way of last chance. We, therefore, proceed to decide
the petition on merits.
. The petitioner impugns the order dated 13th
| February | 2006 | passed | by | the | respondent | no.2 - |
Caste | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scrutiny | Committee | the | reby | conf | irming | the order |
dated | |
| 22/8/2005 | passed | by | the | Sub | Divisional | Officer | ||
| (Respondent | no.3) | refu | sing | to | grant | caste | certificate |
to the petitioner as belonging to "Malhar Koli"
Scheduled Tribe.
2
When the competent authority refuses to issue
| caste | certificat | e, | an | appeal | lies | before the |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | No.2 | - | Committee | and, | therefore, the |
||
| petitioner | had | filed | an appe |
al | before | the Respondent |
|
| No.2 | against | the | order | passed | by | the | Sub Divisional |
| Officer, | Alibaug | on | 22/8/2005. | The | petitioner was |
||
| called u |
pon for |
personal | hearing | on | 23/ |
11/2005 and he |
|
| submitted | in | all | eight | docum | ents. | He was also |
|
| interviewed | on | the | traits, | custo | ms | and religious |
practices as followed by the Malhar Koli Scheduled
Tribe.
The school record of the petitioner’s father
| which | was | available before |
the Com |
mittee i |
ndicated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| that | the peti |
tioner’s father was |
born |
on 16 |
/12/1947 |
| and | his caste |
was recorded as |
"Hindu |
Koli ( |
Malhar). |
| The C |
ommittee | noted that th |
e word |
"Malhar" | was |
| subsequently | inter |
polated in |
different | ink | and, |
| therefore, | it | recorded a fin |
ding that |
originally |
the |
| petitioner’s | fathe | r’s caste was |
recorded |
as | "Hindu |
| Koli" | and not |
as "Hindu Koli |
(Malhar)". | As per |
the |
| Committee | there | was a mani |
pulation in |
the | school |
| record | and it |
also noted that |
when |
the pe |
titioner’s |
| uncle | was adm |
itted in the |
school o |
n 2/7/1960 |
a |
| similar | entry | was made. It |
was |
under | these |
3
| circumstances | that | the | Fo | ur Member |
Committee | held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| that the |
pet | itioner | could | not produce |
any | sufficient | |
| documentary | evide | nce | in | su | pport of his |
claim th |
at he |
| belongs to |
the | Malh | ar | Koli | Scheduled Tribe. |
Out |
of |
| the eight |
doc | uments | he | submitted | before | the | |
| Committee, | none | of | the | m | pertained to a |
period | prior |
| to the |
Presid | ential | Or | der | of 1950 and |
they did |
not |
| have the |
due | evi | denti | ary | value. The v |
iew taken |
by |
| the Commi |
ttee | in | the | im | pugned order ca |
nnot be |
termed |
as perverse or grossly erroneous so as to call for
interference therein.
. Hence the petition is rejected summarily.
(J.H.BHATIA,J.)
(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee's refusal to issue a caste certificate for Malhar Koli based on manipulated school records can be termed perverse.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Caste Scrutiny Committee's finding that documentary evidence had manipulative handwriting.
Bhupendra Jagannath Patil
State of Maharashtra
B.H.MARLAPALLE
J.H.BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
