Allowed

Ramkrushna Narayan Baviskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC2 Feb 2022WP/6386/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee that invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate. Relying on historical records and settled law, the court directed the Committee to issue a valid Scheduled Tribe certificate. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and set aside; the Committee was directed to issue a caste validity certificate within three weeks.

Ramkrushna Narayan Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP.6386-19.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6386 OF 2019

¶5

Ramkrushna S/o Narayan Baviskar, Age : 48 years, Occu. Social work, R/o Janata Nagar, Near Datta Mandir, Old Waghadi Road, Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. Through its Secretary.

¶8

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar Through its Member Secretary. … Respondents

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. C. Yeramwar. AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶11

RESERVED ON : 28.01.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2022

¶12

ORDER : (Per S. G. Mehare, J.) :-

¶13

Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 11.03.2019

¶14

invalidating his caste certificate by Respondent No.2.

¶15

WP.6386-19.odt

¶16

2. Petitioner claimed that he belongs to “Thakur” scheduled

¶17

tribe. He is the permanent resident of village Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. By following the due procedure of law, the Sub Divisional Officer of Shirpur had issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 13.10.1999. Petitioner was elected as councillor for Municipal Council. The District Collector, Dhule, had referred his tribe claim to Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.09.2003, to decide his tribe caste claim. While submitting the proposal for verification of tribe caste claim, the petitioner had submitted the school record, school leaving certificate, school admission extract of his son, and his own. He had also submitted the documents of the caste and birth certificates of his parental relatives. Petitioner also produced copies of the sale deeds to prove his tribe caste claim.

¶18

Respondent No.2, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, had called the vigilance report. It was adverse to the petitioner, hence, a show cause was served on the petitioner. He had submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. However, the Scrutiny committee/respondent No.2 did not satisfy with the reply and proceeded to make a detailed inquiry. After

¶19

¶20

WP.6386-19.odt

¶21

appreciating the evidence and material before respondent No.2, it has come to a conclusion that, the claim of the petitioner is neither proved on the documents nor on the affinity test. It has also recorded the finding that, the petition could not be disposed of in his favour on the basis of the caste validity certificates produced by him.

¶22

Mr. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that the findings recorded by respondent No.2 are apparently against the settled law on affinity test and area restriction. The evidence led before respondent No.2 has not been appropriately appreciated and, it has erroneously considered the relatives from the maternal side of the petitioner. He would submit that the same order rejecting the claim of his son has been set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6934 of 2019 on 4^th December 2021. Its copy is placed on record.

¶23

The learned counsels for the respondents have opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders. However, they have admitted the settled law on area restriction and affinity test.

¶24

¶25

WP.6386-19.odt

¶26

6. Respondent No.2 has referred to the following

¶27

documents and relation with the son of the petitioner, which are in his favour :

¶28

v-	nLr,sotkps uko	nLr,sotkaojhy O;Drhps	vtZnkjk’kh jDr ukrs	tkrhph	izos’k @ uksan.kh
dz-		uko		uksan	fnukad
1	tUe e`R;w uksan jft”Vj	rqG’kh cki ek.kdk efgir	pqyr pqyr vktksckaph cfg.k	Bkdwj	25-10-1918
2	tUe e`R;w uksan jft”Vj	#ih =acd eghir Bkdwj	pqyr pqyr vktksckaph cfg.k	Bkdwj	15-11-1926
3	tUe e`R;w uksan jft”Vj	xksih ek.kdk efgir	pqyr pqyr vktksckaph cfg.k	Bkdwj	10-01-1930
4	‘kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk	mRre ek.khd Bkdwj	pqyr pqyr vktksck	Bkdwj	03-06-1941
5	‘kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk	‘kadj #iyk ckfoLdj	pqyr vktksck	fganw Bkdwj	05-10-1957
6	‘kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk	foBkckbZ #iyk Bkdwj	vktksckph cfg.k	fganw Bkdwj	02-08-1960
7	‘kkGk izos’k fuxZe mrkjk	jked`”.k ukjk;.k ckfoLdj	vtZnkj	fganw Bkdwj	tUe fnukad 01-06-1970
8	‘kkGk izos’k fuxZe mrkjk	g”kZo/kZu jked`”.k ckfoLdj	vtZnkjkpk eqyxk	Bkdwj	02-06-2003

¶29

The consistent record pertaining to the caste since 1918 of the paternal relatives is as “Thakur”. The record is of prepresidential notification and pre-constitutional period. The said documents have evidentiary value. The Apex Court has laid down the law in the case of Anand Vs. Committee, (2012) 1 SCC 113 that, the affinity test is not the litmus test. The area restriction is also admittedly removed.

¶30

In view of the above facts and the settled law, we do not find any reason to take a different view as has been taken by

¶31

5 WP.6386-19.odt

¶32

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the petitioner’s son in the same order impugned before it. Hence, we pass the following order :

¶33

(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Committee/respondent No.2 shall issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner of “Thakur” (Schedule Tribe) within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶34

(ii) Petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶35

(iii) No orders as to costs.

¶36

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)

¶37

vmk/-

Ramkrushna Narayan Baviskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrushna Narayan Baviskar 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

Sanjaykumar Biharilal Bangad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahatram Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr Its President Shambhau Dhondiba Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Others

Amol Vijay Patil Vs Matoshri Pratisthan Thr Its President / Secretary and Others

Ranjit Sandipan Bagal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Principal Secretary and Others

Shantabai Zankarmal Meher and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadeo Digambar Birajdar and Others Vs Jailaxmi Sugars Nitali Products Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director and Others