Dismissed

Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagatp v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2012WP/5935/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the rejection of caste validity certificates. The Court held that the relevant Supreme Court precedent distinguishing ascriptive identity from affinity tests was inapplicable since the petitioner's father, not his relatives under an affinity test, was found to belong to the Maratha caste. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee's rejection stood unchall

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed, and the caste validity certificates are denied.

Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagatp Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

vss

¶2

wp.5935.2011+

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2011

¶5

Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagtap ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents

¶6

a/w WRIT PETITION NO.7006 OF 2011

¶7

Abhay D. Jagtap ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents

¶8

Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶10

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y. GANOO, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 25.10.2012

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

These matters were heard in extenso on 19.10.2012. The

¶14

points which were urged before us have already been adverted to and dealt within the said order. The last two contentions which were raised on behalf of the petitioner, at the end of the hearing, we gave time to the Counsel for the petitioner to point out the judgments on which he would

¶15

vss 1 of 4

¶16

wp.5935.2011+

¶17

like to rely in support of his contention that once caste validity certificate is issued in favour of one close relative, the Scrutiny Committee has no option but to grant validity certificate to other family members, as a matter of course. The second point urged was that the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner was not eligible because he does not come from tribal area is also untenable.

¶18

As regards the first contention, the petitioner has relied on the unreported decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amruta Vijay More vs. State of Maharashtra¹ . In that case, similar argument has been considered. The Apex Court has distinguished the exposition in the case of Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurikar & Ors.² and the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner³ , on the ground that in those decisions, father and his uncle were shown to be of 'Koshti' caste, which was later recognised as 'Halba' and one of the appellant's cousins had been shown to be a member of the 'Halba' community. In the reported case, a further question arose as to whether 'Koshti' would be sub-caste of 'Halba' or 'Halbi' and whether 'Halba Koshti' is a sub-division or 'Halba' or 'Halbi' as per Entry 19 in the Act having application to Maharashtra. However, in the case of Amruta More (supra) before the Apex Court, the father,

¶19

1 ) IA No.3 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2011 decided on 23.8.2011

¶20

2 ) (1994) 6 SCC 241

¶21

3 ) 1994 SCC (6) 241

¶22

vss 2 of 4

¶23

wp.5935.2011+

¶24

paternal uncle, brother and paternal cousins of the appellant belonged to Thakur Scheduled tribe and the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the affinity test had issued validation certificate to the close relatives of the appellant. In the present case, no pleading is found in the Writ Petition or plea was taken before the Committee that the validity certificate issued in favour of close relatives of the petitioner (his cousin brothers), was on the basis of the affinity test as in the case of Amruta Vijay More vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). In the present case, however, it is noticed that the petitioner's father was found to be belonging to Maratha caste by the Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, the decision relied upon by the petitioner referred to in the case of Amruta Vijay More vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) , will be of no avail to the petitioner. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee as regards the petitioner in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur community is unquestionable.

¶25

In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to dwell upon the second plea taken before us about the correctness of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner was ineligible as he did not come from tribal area. If the petitioner were to succeed on the first contention dealt with hitherto, it would have become necessary for us to deal with the second ground.

¶26

vss 3 of 4

¶27

wp.5935.2011+

¶28

Hence, the petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

¶29

(R.Y. GANOO, J.)

¶30

(A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶31

vss 4 of 4

Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagatp v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagatp 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

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Indirabai Narayan Biwalkar and Ors.

Dagu Murlidhar Gamane and Anr. Vs Assistant Director, Town Planning Authority and Ors.

Suboth S. Shah. Vs Mumbai Municipal Coporation and Anr.

Farida N. Khory Vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Savaliram Ananda Kunde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abhay Dnyaneshwar Jagtap Vs 1.STATE of Maharashtra and Ors.