Partly allowed

Shaikh Shahrukh Munir v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Apr 2014WP/1120/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the invalidation of petitioner's caste claim by the scrutiny committee. Court held committee failed to refer matter to vigilance cell as per Supreme Court precedent. Impugned decision quashed with direction to committee to reconsider afresh within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision quashed. Committee directed to decide caste claim afresh taking vigilance cell report into account and afford personal hearing within six months.

Shaikh Shahrukh Munir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1120-14.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1120/2014

¶5

Shaikh Shahrukh Munir Age 18 years complete, Occ-Student R/o Deolali Pravra, Tq. Rahuri Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

V/s

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra Department of Cultural Affairs & Social Justice, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, Through its Secretary

¶9

[Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.]

¶10

2] The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nashik Division, Nashik Through its Member Secretary

¶11

3] The Sub Divisional Officer Shrirampur

¶12

4] Government Polytechnic Ahmednagar Through its Principal.

¶13

Shri A.S.Golegaonkar,Adv.for petr. Shri K,G.Ghute Patil,AGP for respondents-State

¶14

wp1120-14.odt

¶15

¶16

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & V.K.JADHAV,JJ.

¶17

DATE : 15/04/2014

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally.

¶20

2] This petition takes exception to the decision of the respondent no.1 committee dated 21/12/13 invalidating caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Muslim Takari – Vimukta Jati Community.

¶21

3] The petitioner is originally resident of Deolali, Pravara, Tq. Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner belongs to Muslim Takari – Vimukta Jati Community. On 27/8/2007, the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur issued caste certificate to the petitioner. When the petitioner was studying in 12^th standard (Science) in respondent no.4, his proposal for validation of the caste claim was forwarded to the respondent scrutiny committee.

¶22

4] The petitioner secured admission to Diploma Course in

¶23

3 wp1120-14.odt

¶24

respondent no.4 college from V.J. Category on the basis of undertaking that the petitioner will submit caste validity certificate within 6 months.

¶25

5] The petitioner was summoned by Committee for hearing. After hearing the petitioner and after considering the documents on record, the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated by the committee. Hence this Petition.

¶26

6] Counsel for the petitioner submits that the committee has not appreciated whole documents, evidence submitted by petitioner and also has not called for vigilance cell report. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted number of documents in support of his caste claim. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted birth extract of Rashanbi daughter of Chandrabhai Husainbhai Takari, Gao Namuna No.14, birth and death extracts of great grand father Budhan Husainbhai Takari, the said document pertains to the year 1936 and same is issued by the Tahsildar, Rahuri. It is further submitted that another 2 documents of the years 1927 and 1933 were submitted before the Committee, however, the committee discarded those documents by observing that in the said documents, only word “Musalman” appears. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶27

7] This Court on 12/2/14, granted time to the Additional

¶28

4 wp1120-14.odt

¶29

Government Pleader to take instructions and particularly with regard to averments at paragraph nos.12 and 13 of this petition, however, the learned AGP submits that no instructions are received.

¶30

8] We have considered submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and also perused documents placed on record and decision of the committee. Paragraph nos.12 and 13 of the Petition run as under :

¶31

“12] The petitioner submits that he has submitted an extract of Gav Namuna No.14 of Chandbhai Husain Takari about death of his great grand father Budhan Husainbhai Takari which of December 1936 and is issued from office of the Tahsildar, Rahuri of village Jatap, Tq. Rahuri. He has also submitted birth extract of Rashadbi daughter of cousin great grandfather Chandbhai Husainbhai Takari which of period 1933 and is issued from Birth Register of village Jatap from office of the Tahsildar, Rahuri. The petitioner has also submitted and extract of both the Registers.

¶32

13] The petitioner submits that he has searched out through the Birth & Death Register

¶33

wp1120-14.odt

¶34

¶35

from village Jatap, Tq. Rahuri and there it is found that there is an entry about birth of Babu Budhan Husain who is real cousin grand father of the petitioner, elder brother of real grand father of the petitioner, viz. Gulab who is expired on 19.3.1927 and in the said register, there is column of caste and in the said column, his caste is clearly mentioned as Takari and throughout the Death Register of the year 1927, caste of the persons who expired, have been clearly mentioned. The petitioner submits that he has also got death record of Mugabi Lalbhai s/o Husainbhai and there also in Caste Column, the caste is clearly mentioned as Takari. The said record is of 28.6.1928. The petitioner submits that mugabi is real cousin sister of grand father of the petitioner. Same is about Sagubhai Budhanbhai who was born on 31.12.1931 and in Birth Register of the year 1931, birth of son child to Budhanbhai, i.e. Real elder brother of grand fathe of the petitioner – Gulab, is found to be recorded and in the said record also, surname is mentioned as Takari. The petitioner submits that, in case of cousin great grand father, viz. Lalbhai, in birth extract in caste column in the month of December 1922 –

¶36

¶37

wp1120-14.odt

¶38

birth of daughter Mugabi is found to be recorded and in Caste Column, Takari is mentioned as caste.

¶39

9] Those copies of documents which are referred in paragraph nos.12 and 13 of the petition are placed on record by petitioner at Exh. E, F and G. Upon careful perusal of Exh.F, word “Takari” is mentioned in caste Column. However, we are not inclined to enter into an exercise to find out the correctness of the said entry in the said documents. The committee has not considered the said documents properly. The committee ought to have considered those documents in detail alognwith Gazettee of Ahmednagar District, and annexures thereto and should have followed the procedure prescribed in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 94 . In para no.12 sub clause 6 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that, if the Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or “doubtful” or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issued show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. Thus the documents which are produced on record are issued by Tahsildar, the committee ought to have

¶40

7 wp1120-14.odt

¶41

referred the matter to the vigilance cell before the decision on it but it appears that committee has not referred the matter in respect of the same to the vigilance cell. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, in our opinion, ends of justice will meet, if the impugned decision of the committee is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶42

10] The impugned decision of the respondent committee is quashed and set aside.

¶43

11] The respondent scrutiny committee is directed to consider the caste claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of documentary evidence and also by taking into consideration vigilance cell report.

¶44

12] The committee to afford personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶45

13] The committee to decide caste claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, however, within 6 months from today. Till the decision of the committee, respondent college shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the caste validity certificate. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Petition stands disposed of.

¶46

[V.K.JADHAV,J.] [S.S.SHINDE,J.]

¶47

umg/

Shaikh Shahrukh Munir v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Shahrukh Munir v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Dhansing Daholiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The General Kirana Merchants Association and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The General Kirana Merchants Association and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ranjeeta Fulchand Thakur Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Milind Khanderao Auradkar and Othrs Vs M.I.D.C. through Regional Officer Latur and Another

Namdev Rambhau Angre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others