Remanded

Akash Pramod Chavan v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Devlopment Department and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2019WP/8962/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Scrutiny Committee which maintained its previous conclusions regarding the petitioner's family's caste claim on remand. The Court quashed the order for want of application of mind and for not touching the show-cause notices against the father and grandfather. The Court remanded the matter, directed a fresh discretionary hearing, and ensured the petitio

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Committee for fresh reasoned order; petitioner's admission left undisturbed.

Akash Pramod Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

904-ASWP8962-19.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8962 OF 2019

¶4

Akash Pramod Chavan
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr RK Mendadkar, with TV Jadhav & Priyanka Shaw, for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Ms RA Salunkhe, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

¶9

Mr MN Shivpurkar, Research Ofcer & Mr VS Daund, Law Ofcer,
Scheduled Tribe Certifcate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, is present.

¶10

CORAM:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

G.S. PATEL, JJ
DATED:22nd August 2019

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.We have heard both sides. We have perused the writ petition
and annexures thereto including the impugned order.

¶14

2.A copy of the impugned order reveals that it is passed on
remand. The Scrutiny Committee had before it an order of re-
hearing and remand passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7669
of 2019. That writ petition was decided by this Court on 12th July
2019 and the order of the Scrutiny Committee impugned therein
dated 10th May 2019 was quashed and set aside. After remanding
back the matter, the Committee passed the impugned order.

¶15

Page 1 of 5 22nd August 2019

¶16

904-ASWP8962-19.DOC

¶17

3.The criticism of Mr Mendadkar appearing for the petitioner
is that on remand same order has been passed with same
observations and fndings. It is just a formality completed by the
Committee. The Committee feels that the father of the present
petitioner, Pramod Tatyasaheb Chavan, may have been issued a
certifcate of validity on 14th November 2003 by the Scrutiny
Committee at Pune but in the case of one Omkar Santosh Chavan,
the second cousin of the petitioner from the paternal side, the
Scrutiny Committee seems to have discovered that persons claiming
to be Thakar Scheduled Tribe could not establish their afnity with
that tribe. There were conficting replies and answers given to the
questionnaire.

¶18

4.There is also the document which is procured by the
Vigilance Cell in which one of the relatives of the present family,
Jadabai Digambar Chavan, is stated to be not belonging to Thakar.
The entries against the caste column is ‘Marathi’. Therefore, every
certifcate of validity including that issued to the petitioner’s father
is, according to this Committee, doubtful and vulnerable and has
lost its probative value. Additionally, because the father is accused
of procuring the caste validity certifcate by fraud, misrepresentation
and suppression of facts, reliance is placed on certain entries which
are found against caste column in the documents seized by the
Vigilance Cell. The pre-Independence documents do not contain
the entry Thakar and the entries Hindu Thakar is to be found only
in the post-Independence documents is also a fnding returned by
the Committee.

¶19

Page 2 of 5 22nd August 2019

¶20

904-ASWP8962-19.DOC

¶21

5.We have noted that if the father and grandfather of the
petitioner were issued certifcates of validity on 14th November
2003, then these certifcates could not have been demolished by
such a perfunctory and superfcial exercise. In the process of
scrutinizing and verifying the claim of the petitioner before us, the
Committee has not only doubted the genuineness and veracity of
the certifcates of validity issued to the father and grandfather of the
petitioner and proceeded to nullify them, but has practically decided
fnally the as-yet pending show-cause notices issued to the father
and grandfather. Those two show-cause notices would,
consequently, have to stand allowed in view of the fndings in the
impugned order.

¶22

6.This is not the way in which the Scrutiny Committee can
proceed. At the time of scrutiny and verifcation of the claim of the
son, the father, Pramod, was also present. Now Pramod is visited
with these consequences and, therefore, the show-cause notice
issued to him will be adjudicated only as a formality. The conclusion
is foregone that the certifcate of validity issued to Pramod, and to
his own father, Tatyasaheb, the Petitioner’s grandfather, is vitiated
by fraud/misrepresentation/ suppression of facts.

¶23

7.Such a sweeping conclusion having been reached but without
application of mind, we cannot sustain the impugned order.

¶24

8.While we quash and set aside the impugned order, we direct
that the petitioner together with Pramod and Tatyasaheb will appear
before the Committee at the adjudication of the show-cause notices

¶25

Page 3 of 5 22nd August 2019

¶26

904-ASWP8962-19.DOC

¶27

issued to them. The claims of all three of them would be decided by
a common order.

¶28

9.Mr Mendadkar says that the petitioner is agreeable to this
course.

¶29

10.The parties shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
31st August 2019. On that date the Scrutiny Committee shall allow
the present petitioner, Pramod and Tatyasaheb to inspect the
original records, including the documents seized by the Vigilance
Cell. If they desire to obtain copies of the relevant and germane
documents, then the copies will also be provided to them on
payment of usual copying charges.

¶30

11.In addition, in the event these parties desire to produce
documentary evidence to support and substantiate their claim, the
same be allowed to be tendered on record and duly considered by
the Committee.

¶31

12.The Committee will pass a reasoned order after the entire
exercise is concluded and communicate the same to the petitioner,
his father so also grandfather.

¶32

13.While passing the fresh order, the Committee will not take
into consideration nor be infuenced nor rely upon the observations
and fndings in the impugned order which we have quashed and set
aside today. The mind should not only be applied afresh but the

¶33

Page 4 of 5 22nd August 2019

¶34

904-ASWP8962-19.DOC

¶35

order should also not merely be a replica of the impugned order or
any prior orders in relation to the family.

¶36

14.The speaking order being required to be passed by the
Committee after the entire exercise is concluded, it will be only just,
fair and proper not to disturb the petitioner’s education. Let the
admission of the petitioner not be disturbed in the second year
diploma course in the 4th respondent institution. However, that will
be subject to the fnal orders of the Scrutiny Committee.

¶37

15.Let the Scrutiny Committee complete this entire exercise by
31st December 2019.

¶38

16.The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.

¶39

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶40

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶41

Page 5 of 5 22nd August 2019

Akash Pramod Chavan v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Devlopment Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Pramod Chavan v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Devlopment Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madanmohan C. Gupta and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (Mczma) and Anr.

Sai Siddhant Developers and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Madanmohan C. Gupta and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (Mczma) and Anr.

Khalil Ahmed Mohd. Ali Hamdulay and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Balaram Ambo Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Atc Telecom Tower Vs Mr. Suresh Kakani and Anr.