Allowed

Shaikh Ashif Nurshah Sheikh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and 2 Others

Bombay HC6 Apr 2015WP/2802/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Scrutiny Committee order invalidating his caste claim to Chhapparband Jati. The Court allowed the writ, quashed the order, and directed the Committee to issue a validity certificate citing precedent where near relatives' certification mandated the petitioner's approval.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside; the Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a validity certificate recognizing the petitioner as belonging to Chhapparband Jati within four weeks.

Shaikh Ashif Nurshah Sheikh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No.2802/2014

¶4

Shaikh Ashif Nurshah Sheikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶6

Shri V.R. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. B.H. Dangre, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶7

C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR , JJ. DATED : APRIL 6, 2015.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 16.07.2013, invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to “Chhapparband”, which falls in `Vimukta Jati'.

¶10

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the two members of the Scrutiny Committee were not justified in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, when the vigilance report supported the claim of the petitioner and the same Scrutiny Committee had validated the caste claim of the real cousin brother of the petitioner and the son of the cousin brother. It is stated that the documents on record clearly show that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband Jati, however, the two members of the Scrutiny Committee have illegally

¶11

¶12

invalidated the caste claim without giving due weightage to the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the near relatives of the petitioner. It is stated that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have validated the caste claim, specially when the vigilance report favoured the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Chhapparband Jati. It is stated that one of the members of the Committee had held that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband Jati, whereas the two other members have invalidated the tribe claim.

¶13

Ms. Dangre, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that the petitioner did not prove his affinity to Chhapparband Jati and the two members of the Committee have rightly invalidated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Chhapparband Jati in the absence of cogent evidence. It is stated that the documents tendered by the petitioner did not establish that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband Jati. It is, however, fairly admitted on behalf of the respondent-Committee that the Scrutiny Committee has validated the caste claim of the real cousin brother of the petitioner and the son of the cousin brother.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the two members of the Scrutiny Committee were not justified in holding that the petitioner does not belong to Chhapparband Jati. It

¶15

¶16

appears that in several documents tendered by the petitioner the caste was recorded as `Chhapparband'. The Vigilance Cell had conducted a proper vigilance enquiry and had tendered a report in favour of the petitioner's caste claim. So also, the petitioner had produced the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the real paternal cousin of the petitioner and the son of the paternal cousin. When the near blood relatives of the petitioner were granted the caste validity certificate, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 (Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs.Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, and others), it was necessary for the Committee to grant the caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner also. We do not find that the two members of the Scrutiny Committee have rightly rejected the caste claim of the petitioner by recording cogent reasons. The Scrutiny Committee has not given due weightage to the caste validity certificates issued in favour of the near blood relatives of the petitioner and also the report of the Vigilance Cell which supports the claim of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the two members of the Committee appear to have committed an error in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner, when the third member was clearly of the view that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband Jati.

¶17

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The

¶18

¶19

respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a validity certificate that the petitioner belongs to “Chhapparband Jati” which is recognized as Vimukta Jati within a period four weeks.

¶20

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Ambulkar

Shaikh Ashif Nurshah Sheikh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Ashif Nurshah Sheikh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and 2 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

Shri Vijay S/O Pralhad Nage Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola and Another

Vyankatesh Reality, through Its Partner, Ashok Ratanlalji Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

M/S Enestee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. through Signator Shri S.K. Panigrahi, Nagpur Vs Union of Indi Athrough, Its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Ashok S/O Pundlik Wasnik Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and 3 Others