Partly allowed

Irfan Ibrahim Chaferkar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2019WP/8916/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's caste certificate claim as 'kasai' by the scrutiny committee. The court held that the committee failed to comply with mandatory rules regarding notice via Form 25 and conduct an affinity test. The order was set aside for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order. Restored matter to respondent no. 2 for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Irfan Ibrahim Chaferkar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

46-wp-8916.2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8916 OF 2019

¶5

Irfan Ibrahim Chaferkar

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr.Kalpesh Patil for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.K.N. Solanki, AGP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 19, 2019

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Petitioner claims to be Muslim kasai. His caste claim has been invalidated by respondent no. 2 scrutiny committee on 18/12/2018. The only reason given is that the documents produced by him mention caste or religion as musalman and there is no document showing the same to be kasai. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the vigilance report, there is no compliance with the provisions of rule 17 by issuing notice in Form 25 and no affinity test has been applied. Only because the documents used word musalman, the oral evidence of elders in the family and society, showing

1/4

nilegaonkar

46-wp-8916.2019.odt

kasai as an ancestral profession, has been overlooked.

¶19

Learned AGP submits that the vigilance report brings on record only facts. But the Committee found those facts not sufficient and hence, indicating those facts, show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. He was given an opportunity in terms of section 8 of 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 Act, 2000 as the burden to establish the caste is upon him. Petitioner did not discharge that burden.

¶20

Perusal of the vigilance report shows that the vigilance squad collected the documents which record the religion or caste as musalman. They did not come across any document in which some other caste was recorded. During home enquiry, they have recorded some statements which support the stand of the petitioner. On the basis of this vigilance report, show cause notice was then served upon the petitioner on 26/6/2018. Petitioner has replied to it and pointed out that material on record was sufficient. After this, impugned order has been passed.

¶21

The impugned order does not show any specific material

2/4

nilegaonkar

46-wp-8916.2019.odt

with the Committee to hold that the petitioner does not belong to kasai caste. No doubt the burden is upon him to prove his caste claim, but that does not mean that respondent no. 2 committee has to view the entire material on record with suspicion. There has to be some material to create a doubt. Here the impugned order does not show existence of any material to doubt the claim of elders in the family and society. Coupled with it is the fact that in all old documents, no other caste of the petitioner or his ancestors has been recorded.

¶26

In case of doubt, the committee could have then resorted to affinity test. The traits and customs in the family could have been verified during the home enquiry. Petitioner also could have been given opportunity in that respect. The impugned order does not show that any such enquiry into the traits and customs was made. With the result, the affinity test has not been resorted to.

¶27

In this situation, we find the impugned order suffering from error of jurisdiction. We therefore, quash and set aside the same. 7. The matter is restored back to the file of respondent no. 2 for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. Petitioner to appear before respondent no. 2 Committee on 30/09/2019. The committee shall thereafter proceed in accordance with rule 17 of

3/4

nilegaonkar

46-wp-8916.2019.odt

2012 rules and take appropriate decision at the earliest and in

¶32

any case within next six months. Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.

¶33

(SANDEEP KASHINATH SHINDE, J.)

¶34

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶35

4/4

¶36

nilegaonkar

Irfan Ibrahim Chaferkar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Ibrahim Chaferkar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh Vs the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur and Ors.

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh Vs the Block Development Officer ( Class-I) , Panchayat Samiti , Karmala Solapur and Ors.

Irappa @ Chermal Subhash Dhangar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Suresh Dagadu Thakur Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Ibrahim Fakirsaheb Nalband and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tukaram Kerba Netke Vs the State of Maharashtra