Allowed

Dinesh Vasant Chavan U/G Vasant Baburao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016WP/5489/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed a writ petition and quashed an order by a Caste Scrutiny Committee that invalidated a petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate. The Court, noting validation certificates held by the petitioner's father, brother, and sister, held the impugned order to be illogical and directed the Committee to issue a certificate to the petitioner w

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.04.2013 was quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 was directed to issue a validation certificate to the petitioner preferably within a period of four weeks from the date o

Dinesh Vasant Chavan U/G Vasant Baburao… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.5489 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5376 OF 2014
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14149 OF 2016

¶4

Dinesh Vasant Chavan,
Age 17 years,
Occ. Studying 12th (Science),
Swami Ramdas Junior College,
Girnera Tanda, Aurangabad
u/g. of father -
Vasant s/o. Baburao Chavan,
Age 48 years, Occ.Govt. Service,
r/o. Mhada Colony, House No.93,
Darga Road, New Osmanpura,
Aurangabad..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
and anr.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr.M.N.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner

¶9

Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for respondent no.1

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2016

¶11

2 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

2.Rule. With consent of the parties, taken
up for final disposal.

¶15

3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to ' Thakar ' scheduled tribe and is in receipt of the tribe certificate issued by the competent authority containing certification accordingly. The tribe certificate issued to the petitioner was referred for scrutiny to respondent no.2 - Committee. Respondent no.2 – Committee, after observance of the procedure prescribed under the law and after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that he belongs to the scheduled tribe category and as such, directed invalidation of the tribe certificate issued to the petitioner.

¶16

4.The petitioner contends that apart from

¶17

the documentary evidence in the form of the School

¶18

3 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶19

Leaving Certificates of the petitioner and his

¶20

blood relations recording entries of the concerned

¶21

tribe, the petitioner placed reliance also on the
validation certificate issued to his father Vasant

¶22

Baburao Chavan dated 04.03.2002 and the validation
certificates issued to his real sister, namely
Pallavi Vasant Chavan and real brother, namely
Anant Vasant Chavan dated 07.05.2010 and
09.08.2011, respectively. The reasoned order
passed by the Committee, while allowing the claim
of the father of the petitioner for issuance of

¶23

the validity certificate, is placed on record at
Exhibit “X”. The Committee, after going through
the documentary evidence placed on record by the
father of the petitioner, directed issuance of the
validation certificate in his favour.

¶24

5.Apart from the father of the petitioner,

¶25

his real brother and real sister are also in
receipt of the validation certificates issued by
the competent authority. It is neither the

¶26

4 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶27

contention of the respondents nor any finding has
been recorded by respondent no.2 – Committee that
the blood relations of the petitioner i.e. his
father, brother and sister have secured the
validation certificates by practicing fraud or by
producing forged or fabricated documents. The
Committee, without recording any reason, has
invalidated the claim of the petitioner. Even
though it is mentioned in the impugned order that
the petitioner has failed to answer the affinity
test, there are absolutely no reasons recorded to
support the said finding. In this context,
reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case
of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010(6)Mh.L.J.
401.

¶28

6.In view of the judgment referred to above
and since it is noticed that three members in the
family of the petitioners i.e. his father, brother
and sister are in receipt of the validation

¶29

5 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶30

certificates issued by the competent authority and

¶31

that it has not been demonstrated that such

¶32

certificates have been secured by the blood
relations of the petitioner by practicing fraud or

¶33

upon relying on the forged or fabricated

¶34

documents, so also correctness and authenticity of

¶35

those validation certificates has not been

¶36

challenged, we do not find any impediment in

¶37

placing reliance on the documents produced by the
petitioner i.e. the validation certificates issued

¶38

in favour of the blood relations of the

¶39

petitioner. It cannot be logically conceived that

¶40

although most of the family members of the petitioner belong to ' Thakar ' scheduled tribe category and are in receipt of the validation

¶41

certificates issued by the competent authority,

¶42

the petitioner can be singled out for meeting

¶43

differential treatment. The order passed by

¶44

respondent no.2 - Committee is illogical and
unsustainable and as such, is liable to be quashed

¶45

6 44-wp5489-13.odt

¶46

and set aside.

¶47

7.The order impugned in this petition dated
01.04.2013 passed by respondent no.2 – Committee

¶48

is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 is
directed to issue validation certificate in favour
of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and
preferably, within a period of four weeks from
today.

¶49

8.Rule is made absolute accordingly. The
petition stands allowed.

¶50

9.In view of disposal of the petition,
pending Civil Applications shall stand disposed
of.

¶51

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]

¶52

kbp

Dinesh Vasant Chavan U/G Vasant Baburao Chavan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Vasant Chavan U/G Vasant Baburao Chavan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bansi Tele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sakharam Bhivaji Athavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jamkhed Audyogik Vasahat Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through Its Chairman Satish Pandharinath Shinde Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Udyog Sarthi Andheri through Its CEO and Another

Narayan Vishwanath Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sopan Abbasaheb Banger Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others