Allowed

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay P Kolte v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2010WP/2778/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Scrutiny Committee order rejecting a caste claim under OBC. The High Court allowed the petition, finding the petitioner established Kunbi OBC status via documentary evidence, holding negative school records of ancestors were sub-castes also listed, and excusing the Committee for procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Scrutiny Committee order quashed; validity certificate directed to be issued in favour of the petitioner.

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

wp2778.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2778 OF 2010

¶5

Ku. Aditi d/o Abhay Kolte age 19 years, occ. student through her father Abhay s/o Prabhakar Kolte age 49 years, occ. advocate r/o “Suprabha”, 40, Jeevan Society Jyotinagar, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2 The Committee for scrutiny and Verification of Caste Claims (Committee no. 1) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &

¶11

R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2010

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶13

wp2778.10

¶14

¶15

1 We were required to instruct Chairman of respondent no. 2 – Committee to personally remain present in court today, since it was noticed that despite granting several chances the respondent no. 2 – Committee had not responded to the notice nor original record pertaining to matter

¶16

was made available for perusal.

¶17

2 In accordance with the directions issued by this court on 6th December, 2010, Mr.Kadri, the Chairman of respondent no. 2- Committee is personally present. Affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent

¶18

no. 2. It is stated in the affidavit that there was communication gap

¶19

between office of Government Pleader and office of respondent no. 2. The orders issued by this court on previous occasion were not communicated

¶20

and as such record could not be made available on previous dates. The respondent no. 2 has also tendered apology on account of inconvenience

¶21

caused to the court. In our view, explanation tendered by respondent no. 2

¶22

is acceptable.

¶23

3 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶24

4 With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final

¶25

wp2778.10

¶26

¶27

disposal at admission stage.

¶28

5 Petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 31-7-2009 thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. Petitioner claims to be of Kunbi caste which is included in Other Backward Classes. An entry to that effect finds place at sr. no. 83 in the list.

¶29

6 The caste claim has been turned down mainly on the ground that the

¶30

petitioner has failed to establish her relationship with the grand father and great grand father by producing independent evidence, apart from the affidavit sworn in by father of the petitioner. Petitioner has placed reliance

¶31

on the document namely birth and death extract pertaining to the year

¶32

1938 wherein birth entry pertaining to Maruti Tukaram has been recorded. Said Maruti Tukaram is stated to be the great grand father of the petitioner.

¶33

Petitioner has also placed reliance on the document namely revenue extract issued by the Naib Tahsildar on 12-6-2006. The entry recorded in respect of ownership of Tukaram Limbaji pertains to the year 1929 and in the

¶34

said extract the caste of the owner Tukaram Limbaji has been recorded as

¶35

Kunbi. Father of the petitioner in his affidavit tendered before the Scrutiny

¶36

Committee has given details in respect of relationship. Pedegree recorded

¶37

wp2778.10

¶38

¶39

in affidavit shows that Tukaram Limbaji was the great great grand father of the petitioner whereas his son Maruti Tukaram was the great grand father and Prabhakar Maruti was grand father. Entries pertaining to Tukaram Limbaji and Maruti Tukaram clearly establish that both of them belong to Kunbi caste which is included in OBC category.

¶40

7 Another reason recorded in the judgment delivered by the Scrutiny Committee for turning down the claim of the petitioner is that there is an entry in respect of caste in the school record of Prabhakar which is recorded as Leva patil. There is also an entry recorded pertaining to Suman who is grand mother of the petitioner and her caste is recorded as Leva Patil. It is pertinent to note that sub-caste Leva Kunbi, Leva Patil, Marathi Kunbi and Kunbi Maratha are recorded at entry no. 83 in the list, apart from Kunbi. All these sub-castes are also regarded as Other Backward Castes. Thus, the

¶41

entry recorded in the school register pertaining to Prabhakar who is grand father of the petitioner so also the entry recorded in the school record of the grand mother of the petitioner which records the caste as Leva Patil cannot be considered as contrary evidence.

¶42

8 Scrutiny Committee, thus, has fallen in error in recording finding that

¶43

wp2778.10

¶44

¶45

the evidence in the form of school record pertaining to the grand father and

¶46

grand mother of the petitioner is a contrary evidence which does not support the claim of the petitioner. As has been recorded above, documentary evidence pertaining to the year 1929 and 1938 support the claim of the petitioner and the said record is obviously record pertaining to pre-constitutional period. in this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the petitioner has established her claim in respect of caste status of her belonging to Kunbi OBC category. Order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

¶47

will have to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly and quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and

¶48

‘C’. Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate in favour of

¶49

the petitioner as claimed by her. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the

¶50

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶52

( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE

¶53

dyb

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay P Kolte v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay P Kolte v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uddhav Bapurao Baswade Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nemichand Hanumantrao Kanote Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Madhav Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Adhar Mahajan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tushar Janardan Bhamare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.