Remanded

Pramod Sidram Made v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2018WP/6625/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed the petitioner's public interest litigation challenging the rejection of his Scheduled Tribe certificate claim. The court held that committees must respect prior findings on blood relatives unless fraud is proven, and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision; coercive action stayed until final decision.

Pramod Sidram Made Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

42-caw-1285-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1285 OF 2018 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6625 OF 2016

Pramod Sidram Made

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w. Ms. Gaikwad, for the Petitioner Mr. M.M.Pabale, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶11

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR &

¶12

N. W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : JULY 09, 2018

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

¶16

Heard parties through their counsel.

¶17

Through this Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶18

Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 10^th May, 2016 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune (Respondent No.2) whereby the Petitioner's claim for caste validation has been rejected. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he had submitted Caste Validity Certificate granted to him by the Committee in favour of his father,

¶19

real brother and sister the Committee has discarded the same on

¶20

Vishal Digitally signed by Vishal Subhash Subhash Parekar Date: 2018.07.09 Parekar 17:17:30 +0530

1/5

Vishal Parekar

42-caw-1285-2018.doc

the ground that the same would not be conclusive proof and would not absolve the Petitioner from discharging the burden cast on him to produce the relevant evidence. According to the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, the decision runs contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay

¶25

Nichale v/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee

¶26

No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 which was based upon the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of

¶27

Raju Ramsing Vasave v/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54 . So also the in the case of “ Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 113 ”.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned AGP has supported the impugned order.

¶29

Having considered the submissions and having gone through the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), we find that the Division Bench has in paragraphs 7 and 9 observed thus :

¶30

“7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same

2/5

Vishal Parekar

42-caw-1285-2018.doc

caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.

¶35

In the present case, we find that the committee has disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving certificate of Petitioner's father and noticing that the original caste written on it was 'Thakur' and that was subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat. The committee observed that the caste has been changed without complying with the procedure prescribed by section 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact, the caste has been changed on the basis of the affidavit. From the findings of the committee it appears that the committee has observed that the change of caste has been one illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant validity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent cast claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be

3/5

Vishal Parekar

42-caw-1285-2018.doc

bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the Petitioner.”

¶40

Thus in our considered view, the reason assigned by the Respondent No.2 – Committee for rejection of the Petitioner's claim cannot be sustained as it runs contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra). In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Committee for deciding the Petitioner's caste validity claim afresh keeping in view the certificates of his father, real brother and sister as also keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra) as also the law laid down in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of

¶41

Tribe Claims and Others (supra).

¶42

The Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27^th

¶43

August, 2018.

¶44

The Committee to take appropriate decision as aforesaid

4/5

Vishal Parekar

42-caw-1285-2018.doc

within four months from the date of Petitioner appearing before the Committee.

¶49

Since we are setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Committee, we direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner for non production of the Caste Validity Certificate till the matter is

¶50

decided finally by the Committee.

¶51

The Petition stands disposed of as such.

¶52

In view of above, Civil Application is also disposed of.

¶53

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶54

5/5

¶55

Vishal Parekar

Pramod Sidram Made v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Sidram Made v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

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

Aarif Budan Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Captain Niranjan Kumar Basak and Anr. Vs Assistant Director General of Shipping (Training) and Ors.

Govind Ganpatrao Degave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tata Steel Ltd. (Wire Division) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Sidram Made Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Pradeep Shirsolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.