Allowed

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2021WP/374/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe caste status. The court found the committee erred by not evaluating pre-constitutional documents in totality and disregarding a cousin's validity certificate. The order was set aside and proceedings remanded.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 15.01.2021 was quashed; proceeding restored to Scrutiny Committee; ad-interim provisional admission continued.

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde Vs Joint… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

913-wp-374-2021.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.374 of 2021

¶5

Abhishek s/o. Satish Bakde

¶6

Versus

¶7

Joint Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others

¶8

Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri A.M. Deshpande, Addl.GP for the Respondent - State Shri D.V. Thakare, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Shri S.V. Bhutada, Advocate for intervenor

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 10 FEBRUARY 2021

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The learned counsel appears for Respondent No.3. As regard Respondent No.2, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No.2 is served and further states that affidavit of service of notice will be filed within a period of four working days from today.

¶14

3 Statement is accepted.

¶15

nd.thawre

¶16

2 913-wp-374-2021.odt

¶17

On 20 January 2021, after considering the matter in detail, we have passed an order, recording that a case is made out to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, however, the order was not passed since all the Respondents were not served. The order dated 20 January 2021 reads thus:

¶18

“ This petition is an outcome of an invalidation of caste claim of the Petitioner as Halbi, Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

Heard Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶20

It is submitted that the impugned invalidation is mainly based on an entry in the name of one Baliram, dated 24 September 1917, wherein the caste was recorded as “Koshti”. It is urged that Baliram is not in relation with the Petitioner and the said document was never supplied to the Petitioner so as to provide an opportunity to him to submit his say and to deny the relationship with Baliram.

¶21

The learned Counsel further argues that, other preconstitutional period documents wherein the caste was recorded as “Halbi”, were ignored and not considered only because of above referred entry of Baliram.

¶22

A strong reliance is placed upon the validity certificate issued to Petitioner’s cousin sister namely Ku. Sonal Bakde on 21 September 2016, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 22 August 2016 in Writ Petition No.289/2016. It is pointed out that the said validity certificate has been discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the same had not been granted on merits, but, it was granted as per the directions of this Court.

nd.thawre

913-wp-374-2021.odt

By arguing so, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner has been admitted to first year of Four Year Degree Courses in Engineering and Technology for the Year 2020-21 and today is the last date to submit the validity certificate by 5 O’clock, failing which his admission in the first round will be cancelled and his claim would be considered from open category in the second round. Thus, in the above backdrop he prays for interim protection.

¶27

To consider the contentions of the Petitioner we have perused the relevant documents available on record. Thereupon it is revealed that 5 documents of preconstitutional period were referred by the Committee in the impugned order. Out of said 5 documents, in 4 documents the caste is recorded as ‘Halbi’. The said 4 documents are of Nago Baliramji - dated 24 September 1925, Baliram Tanba - dated 29 March 1930, Ramchandra Baliram Bakde - dated 19 March 1936 and Shankar Baliram Bakde - dated 3 April 1940.

¶28

The document other than these 4 documents wherein caste was not recorded as ‘Halbi’ but as “Koshti”, is the documents in the name of Baliram, dated 24 September 1917. According to the Petitioner the aforesaid document was never supplied to him along with the Police Vigilance Cell report. In the petition there is a specific denial as regards relationship of the Petitioner with said Baliram. The Petitioner could have pointed out the said fact to the Committee if such opportunity had been offerred to him by supplying the said document.

¶29

Besides this entry, while the Committee considered 4 documents of pre-constitutional period, having entry “Halbi”, the Committee ought to have made evaluation of

¶30

nd.thawre

¶31

4 913-wp-374-2021.odt

¶32

the same in totality, which has undisputedly not been done by the Committee and simply discarded the same on the ground that one entry was found as “Koshti”.. We, therefore, do not find the said approach of the Respondent Committee as judicious and sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶33

We are surprised to note that the validity certificate issued to the cousin sister of the Petitioner namely Ku. Sonal Prakash Bakde was not considered on the ground that, it was issued in view of the directions of this Court and not on merits.

¶34

At the first place the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not stopped to point out any contrary evidence, in the said matter at the relevant time. Moreover, the said judgment was not challenged by the Caste Scrutiny Committee before higher Court on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, we find the reason for discarding the validity certificate of cousin sister of the Petitioner, not correct.

¶35

Having observed that the Caste Scrutiny Committee erred in not evaluating all the documents of preconstitutional period in totality, and further having observed that the reason for not considering the validity certificate of the cousin sister of the Petitioner, not correct, we could have allowed the present petition by remanding the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee with a direction to decide the same afresh. However, as nobody is representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, we are passing the following order.

¶36

(i) Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 10 February 2021. Learned Additional Government Pleader waives notice for Respondent No. 1.

nd.thawre

913-wp-374-2021.odt

(ii) By way of an ad-interim relief we direct Respondent No.2 to provisionally allot the seat to the Petitioner for admission to First Year of Four Year Degree Courses in Engineering and Technology for the year 2020-21 against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category (Halba), without insisting for the validity certificate. The admission to be made subject to the result of this Petition.

¶41

(iii) Liberty to the Petitioner to inform this order to Respondents by way of Advocates’ letter.”

¶42

Now all the Respondents are served and by ad-interim order, the provisional admission has been granted, as it was the exigency of time at that stage.

¶43

We therefore dispose of this petit

¶44

]ion, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 15 January 2021 passed by the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and restoring the proceeding to the Scrutiny Committee.

¶45

An ad-interim order dated 20 January 2021, regarding provisional admission shall continue till the disposal of the proceeding before the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati.

¶46

Considering the facts that the Petitioner has been granted admission in the above circumstances, and there are other claimants to the said seat, the Scrutiny Committee will decide the proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date the order reaches to the Scrutiny

¶47

nd.thawre

¶48

6 913-wp-374-2021.odt

¶49

Committee. In case the Scrutiny Committee is not able to decide the proceedings within a period of four weeks, it is open to the Scrutiny Committee to the Civil Application recording reason for the same.

¶50

The Writ Petition is accordingly Disposed of.

¶51

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶52

nd.thawre

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde v. Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati 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

Usha Vijay Tembhurne Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, Mumbai and Another

Mr. Rajendra S/O. Premrao Hedau Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Himmatrao S/O. Tulshiramji Aathawale and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, the Dept. of Village Development, Mumbai and Others

Sudhakar S/O Ramrao Mohod and Others Vs the Director of Municipal Administration, Mumbai and Others

M/S M.J. Solanki, Nagpur through Authorised Person/Manager, Shri. Prashant S/O Diliprao Admane Vs State of Maharashtra, Rural Development Department, Mumbai through Secretary and Others

Abhishek S/O Satish Bakde Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Ors.