Quashed

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Mar 2014WP/9571/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the invalidation of a caste certificate for a Muslim petitioner belonging to the Julah caste. The High Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee's order, directing a fresh adjudication based on a comprehensive Vigilance Cell report focusing on traditional occupation and sociological traits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.04.2013 was quashed and set aside; the case was remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to call for a fresh Vigilance Cell report and pass a fresh adjudication within four

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh Vs Divisional Caste… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp9571.13

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9571 OF 2013

¶6

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh : Petitioner V/s. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Solapur & Anr. : Respondents

¶7

Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader `A' Panel for the Respondents.

¶9

…. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 21, 2014.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents.

¶13

Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives service for the Respondents. Taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.

¶14

The Petitioner obtained a Caste Certificate recording that he

¶15

belongs to caste “Julah” which is notified as Other Backward Class in the

1 of 7

wp9571.13

krs

State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 26.04.2013, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee referred to documents relied upon by the Petitioner. The Vigilance Cell submitted a report which was favourable to the Petitioner. As far as the documents are concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the entries in the school records of the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s brothers were of recent origin and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon.

¶20

The Petitioner claims that he is Mohammedan by religion. The claim of the Petitioner is that the traditional occupation of persons belonging to “Julah” is weaving.

¶21

As far as the status of Other Backward Class granted to certain communities forming part of Mohammedan is concerned, a reference will have to be made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 21.02.2014 in Writ Petition no.10577 of 2013 ( Smt.Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed v. Divisional Caste Certificate Committee no.1) . Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said decision read thus:

¶22

“5 It cannot be disputed that in case

2 of 7

wp9571.13

krs

of the Mohameddans, there were no
recognised castes or sub castes and
therefore, as in the case of Hindus,
there is no likelihood of finding any
entry of the caste of a person of
Mohameddans religion in old records.

¶27

6In the present case, the petitioner
is claiming to be belonging to caste
Mujawar. Our attention is invited to
the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate
Rules,2012 (hereinafter referred to as
`the said Rules'). Rule 12 provided
for the constitution of Vigilance Cell.
Rule 13 deals with contents of the
report upon investigation made by the
Vigilance Cell. Sub Rule (1) of Rule
13 reads thus :

¶28

“13 Report of Vigilance Cell and
Issues to be dealt with

¶29

(1) Vigilance Cell Officer(s) shall
submit report upon investigating
into the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Caste converts to Buddhism, De
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category
claim referred to it

¶30

(a) by visiting permanent place of
residence and conducting domestic
inquiry, or

¶31

(b) by recording statements of
respected and responsible persons
from concerned area, including
representatives of Local Self

3 of 7

wp9571.13

krs

Government, Police, Patil, etc; or

¶36

(c)by collecting information, as
part of recording statement, as
regards to name, age, educational
qualification, occupation, existing
place of residence and information
regarding properties (existing and
disposed) of family members of
applicant or claimant; or

¶37

(d) by collecting information
includingthesociological,
anthropological and ethnological
(anthropologicalmooringsand
ethnological kinship), genetical
traits of the Scheduled Caste,
ScheduledCasteconvertsto
Buddhism,DenotifiedTribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category, if any,; or

¶38

(e) by personally visiting Office of
the Competent Authority or revenue
or school or other concerned
offices.”

¶39

In the present case, the Vigilance Cell
report is on record. Clause (d) of sub
Rule 1 of Rule 13 provides that the
VigilanceCellshouldcollect
information including sociological,
anthropological,ethnologicaland
genetical traits of the relevant Caste.
In the present case, this exercise was
necessary as we have already observed
earlier that there is no likelihood of
any entry of caste recorded in old
record in the case of Mohameddans. It
was necessary for the Vigilance Cell to
make an enquiry in terms of clause (d).
An enquiry should have been made to
ascertain the traditional occupation of

4 of 7

wp9571.13

krs

the Mujawars. We have perused the
Vigilance Cell report. We find that no
such exercise has been made. Perusal
of the impugned order shows that even
the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not
applied the affinity test. Therefore,
we find that the entire approach of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee is erroneous
as in the facts of the case, the Caste
Scrutiny Committee should have directed
the Vigilance Cell to do the exercise
under the provisions of Clause (d) of
Sub Rule 1 of Rule 13 the said Rules.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to
have held the appropriate enquiry in
the present case. Earlier, the
petitionerhadobtainedcaste
certificate of the caste Shikalgar. A
caste certificate is not conclusive
evidence of caste. It is not the case
made out that any adjudication was
made on the basis of the said
certificate by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee. In the present case, the
enquiry as contemplated by the Rules
has not been held.”

¶44

We have perused the report of the Vigilance Cell. Perusal of the report of the Vigilance Cell shows that the Vigilance Cell has not conducted the exercise in terms of clause (d) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

¶45

wp9571.13

¶46

krs

¶47

For the reasons recorded in the said judgment and order dated 21.02.2014, the impugned order will have to be set aside by remanding the case to the Scrutiny Committee.

¶48

8. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

(i) The impugned order dated 26.04.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter of caste verification of the Petitioner is remanded to the first Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee;

¶51

(ii) We direct the Petitioner to appear before the first Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee on 07.05.2014 at 11.00 a.m.;

¶52

(iii) The Caste Scrutiny committee shall call for fresh Vigilance Cell report in terms of Rule 13 and especially clause (d) of sub-rule 1 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012;

¶53

(iv) We direct that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make a fresh adjudication and pass appropriate order preferably

6 of 7

wp9571.13

krs

within four months from 07.05.2014;

¶58

(v) All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶59

(vi) The Rule is made absolute on the above terms. No order as to costs;

¶60

(vii) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶61

(A.S. OKA, J.)

¶62

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶63

7 of 7

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

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

Eco-Cane Sugar Energy Ltd, through Balasaheb D. Desai Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Modern Sugars Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Eco-Cane Sugar Energy Ltd, through Balasaheb D. Desai Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Smt. Kamal Khangonda Patil Vs Municipal Council of Ichalkaranji, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mr. Bashir Nijam Desai and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.