Disposed

Jagdish Kashiram Wange v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2007WP/8086/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order cancelling the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate. The bench directed the Committee to independently verify the caste claim using Supreme Court guidelines and specific state legislation, instructing the Committee to move beyond reliance on contested affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to appear before Committee for independent caste verification within six months.

Jagdish Kashiram Wange Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

bsb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8086 OF 2007

¶4

Jagdish Keshiram Wange... Petitioner

¶5

V/s

¶6

State of Maharashtra & ors.... Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.G.Damle i/by Mr.V.K.Damle for the petitioner.
Mr. V.A.Gangal with Mr.R.D.Rane, Govt. Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. R.K.Mendadkar for the respondent No.3.

¶9

Mr. A.A.Joshi with Mr.J.S.Siddiqui i/by A.V.Jain &
Associates for the respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND

¶11

SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 10TH DECEMBER, 2007.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated
18.9.2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, wherein the
caste certificate of the petitioner Jagdish Kashiram
Wange, who claims to belong to caste Malhar Koli which
is described as Scheduled Tribe, has been permitted to
be withdrawn alongwith cancelling and confiscating the
caste certificate bearing No.MST/SR/ST/145/2005 dated

¶15

¶16

24.10.2005.

¶17

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he alongwith
others belong to Malhar Koli and are descendants of late
Smt.Jamnabai Baburao Wange. They were cultivating
agricultural land situated at Village Valnai, Tal.
Borivali, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that
he alongwith others entered into an agreement of sale
dated 4.9.1980 in respect of agricultural land which was
followed by suplimentary agreement dated 29.6.1995 with
respondent No.3. As they belong to caste Malhar Koli
being a Scheduled Tribe, such transfer of land from the
non-tribal to tribal is prohibited. This led to dispute
between the parties and proceedings were initiated
before the Sub-Divisional Officer (B.S.D.) for
restoration of land, which came to be rejected on the
ground that the caste claim of the petitioner has been
cancelled and confiscated by the Committee under the
impugned order.

¶18

3. The only grievance of the petitioner before this
Court is that, the impugned order does not take into
consideration the issues germane for determination as to
whether the petitioner belongs to caste Malhar Koli or
not but the Committee has placed reliance on various
affidavits which according to the petitioners were

¶19

¶20

obtained from the respondent builder on certain
misrepresentation and, therefore, the impugned order

¶21

deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Committee
should be directed to examine the caste claim of the
petitioner independent of the controversial affidavits
obtained from the petitioner and his relatives and
should directly adhere to the requirements necessary for
examining the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶22

4. We have gone through the impugned order which has
taken into consideration various caste certificates and
documents placed on record by the parties in support of
the caste claim. It has also taken into consideration
the documents relating to the transaction of the land
executed between the parties right from 4.9.1980 onwards
including controversial affidavits.

¶23

5. Whatever may be the object of the petitioner in his
mind. It is expected of the Committee to decide the
caste claim of the petitioner in objective manner
without being influenced by the affidavits filed by the
parties. We may mention here that the conduct of the
petitioner is not free from doubt as is evident from the
observations made by the Committee in the impugned

¶24

¶25

order. But in order to give a fair opportunity to the
petitioner, we are inclined to quash and set aside the
impugned order and direct the Committee to examine the

¶26

caste claim of the petitioner on the parameters
prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri
Patil v/s Additional Commissioner ( (1997) SCC page 437)
and onwards and as per the provisions of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance
and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

¶27

6. We expect that the petitioner should extend all
necessary co-operation to the Committee in getting his
caste claim verified. We direct the petitioner to
appear before the Committee on 10.1.2008.

¶28

7. We expect the Caste Scrutiny Committee to take a
decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months from the date
the petitioner appears before the Committee.

¶29

8. Needless to say that the respondents will be at
liberty to contest the matter before the Committee as

¶30

¶31

they sought permission to do so, during the earlier
hearing, to participate in the proceeding. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee would take the decision in the matter
without being influenced by its earlier order where it

¶32

has simply returned the caste certificate of the
petitioner without taking a decision in the matter.

¶33

9. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶34

( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. )

Jagdish Kashiram Wange v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kashiram Wange v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaykumar Bhatia and Ors. Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Ors,.

Global Boards Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

John Misquiitta and Ors. Vs Municipalcorporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Manohar Ramchandra Mirajkar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Ors.

Sanjay Chugh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nikita Mohan Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.