Dividing Bench dismissed Writ Petitions challenging the Scrutiny Committee's rejection of the petitioners' caste validity claims as Thakur Scheduled Tribes, holding that the earlier Supreme Court precedent relied upon was distinguishable on facts.
The writ petitions were dismissed as they failed.
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.
vss
wp.5935.2011+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2011
Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagtap ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
a/w WRIT PETITION NO.7006 OF 2011
Abhay D. Jagtap ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner
Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y. GANOO, JJ.
DATED: 25.10.2012
P.C.:
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
vss 1 of 4
wp.5935.2011+
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.
1 ) IA No.3 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2011 decided on 23.8.2011
2 ) (1994) 6 SCC 241
3 ) 1994 SCC (6) 241
vss 2 of 4
wp.5935.2011+
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.
vss 3 of 4
wp.5935.2011+
(R.Y. GANOO, J.)
(A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
vss 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether issuance of caste validity certificate to close relatives precludes rejection of the petitioner's claim based on his father's caste.
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's finding that the petitioner did not come from a tribal area is tenable.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for a caste validity certificate as a Thakur from a tribal area.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amruta Vijay More vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶18
Amruta Vijay More vs. State of Maharashtra
Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurikar & Ors.Distinguished¶18
Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurikar & Ors.
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. CommissionerDistinguished¶18
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagtap
Abhay D. Jagtap
State of Maharashtra
A.M. KHANWILKAR
R.Y. GANOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
