Allowed

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013WP/5227/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the rejection of an application for a caste certificate as a Kunbi. The High Court quashed the rejection orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and Scrutiny Committee, holding that available documents provided prima facie evidence sufficient for issuance.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 18.6.2012 and 14.12.2012 are quashed. The petitioner is directed to be issued a caste certificate as 'Kunbi' immediately.

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

{1}

¶2

W.P.No.5227/2013

¶3

drp

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5227 OF 2013

¶6

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav
Age-29 years, Occ-Labourer
R/o Shivur, Tq-Vaijapur
Dist-Aurangabad

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶10

2. The Sub Divisional Officer Vaijapur, Dist-Aurangabad

¶11

.......

¶12

Mr. Subhash V.Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. K.G.Patil, AGP for respondent State

¶13

.......

¶14

[CORAM : A. H. JOSHI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.J.]

¶15

DATE : 17th JULY 2013

¶16

JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, J.):

¶17

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of learned advocates for the parties heard
finally at the stage of admission.

¶18

2. Competent Authority-Sub Divisional Officer,

¶19

Vaijapur-respondent no.2, rejected the application of
petitioner requesting for caste certificate of

¶20

{2} W.P.No.5227/2013

¶21

belonging to the caste 'kunbi ', purportedly for want of requisite record and there being no validity certificate issued in favour of persons referred to in the order and was also not satisfied with the report of the home enquiry and had opined that report ought to be self explanatory which is not the case. Thus, he inferred that the petitioner had failed to prove his caste being 'kunbi ' and as such, has rejected the application by order dated 18.6.2012.

¶22

3.The petitioner had carried an appeal against
aforesaid order under Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Caste, 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 to
the Scrutiny Committee-respondent no.1.

¶23

4.The Committee has referred to the documents
produced by the petitioner in support of his claim to
be a 'kunbi' by caste, like school leaving certificate
showing his caste to be 'kunbi', entry in admission
register of his cousin showing him to be 'kunbi', as
well as other brothers’ and sisters’ school leaving

¶24

{3} W.P.No.5227/2013

¶25

certificates showing them to be 'kunbi'.

¶26

5. However, the committee, by order dated

¶27

14.12.2012, purported to dismiss the appeal of the
petitioner for the reason that he had not been able to
adduce any evidence of the period prior to 1967 to
support his claim as the documents which had been
produced before the committee were considered to be
insufficient and as such, purported to confirm the
order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the competent
authority.

¶28

6.Taking into account the documents which have been
produced by the petitioner before the committee at
appellate level, there appears to be sufficient prima
facie evidence available in the case to show
petitioner to be ‘kumbi’. It has been decided by this
court in umpteen cases, that at the stage of issuance
of caste certificate, material forming prima facie
evidence that person being from a particular caste or
tribe, would be considered sufficient for issuance of
a certificate requested for.

¶29

7. Thus, in the present case, refusal to issue caste

¶30

{4} W.P.No.5227/2013

¶31

certificate in favour of the petitioner is

¶32

unsustainable and would not stand the test of law.

¶33

8. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 18.6.2012 passed by respondents no. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer and dated 14.12.2012 by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee-appellate authority are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2-Sub Divisional Officer is is directed to issue caste certificate to the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to 'kunbi' community, immediately. Needless to state, the certificate issued would be subject to its scrutiny for validation by the Committee.

¶34

9.Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.

¶35

 [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] [A. H. JOSHI, J.]

¶36

drp/A13/wp5227-13

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Premila Kashinath Mathpati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kavita Narayan Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhav Shankar Bashetti Vs Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and Others

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sk. Salim Sk. Basha and Ors. Vs Mohammed Abdul Khaja Rahimoddin and Ors.

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar Vs the St Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad.