Dismissed

Mrs. Ruksana Shamshuddin Inamdar v. the District Caste Certificate Validity Committee and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2022WP/8802/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition dismissed the challenge to an order invalidating the petitioner's Caste Certificate as 'Muslim Machchhimar (Daldi)'. The Court upheld the Caste Scrutiny Committee's decision to reject the claim due to lack of documentary evidence and the petitioner's failure to produce crucial documents (Nikahnama) before the Vigilance Cell.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; no interference warranted in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.

Mrs. Ruksana Shamshuddin Inamdar Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8802 of 2017

¶4

Mrs. Ruksana Shamshuddin Inamdar
nee Ruksana Gulam Husain Khan,
r/at: Lane No.B12,
Near Dr. Godbole, Sayed Nagar,
Hadapsar, Pune 411 028....Petitioner

¶5

v/s.

¶6

1. The District Caste Certificate
Validity Committee,
Jail Road, Behind Comer Zone
IT Park, Yerawada,
 Pune 411 006.

¶7

2. The State of Maharashtra,
 (through the Principal Secretary,
 Social Welfare Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶8

3. Mrs. Sarika Dattatraya Shinde,
 R/at: 315,
 Near Vaiduwadi Talim,
 Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
 (Original Opponent No.1)

¶9

Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL PANJWANI SUNIL Date: PANJWANI 2022.03.02 12:23:30 +0530

¶10

4. Mrs. Tanabai Govind Lakde,
 R/at – Survey No.315,
 B Vaiduwadi, Hadapsar,
 Pune 411 028.
 (Original Opponent No.2).
5. Mrs. Usha Ashok Lakde,
 R/at – Survey No.315,
 Vaiduwadi, Near Bholenath,
 Hadapsar, Pune 411 028.
 (Original Opponent No.3)
6. The Municipal Corporation of
 the City of Pune, (through
 Dy. Commissioner (Election)},
 Shivajinagar, une 411 005.

¶11

2 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶12

7. The Commissioner,
 Municipal Corporation
 of the City of Pune
 Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005.…Respondents

¶13

Mr. Jayesh Kotecha, Advocate a/w. Mr.Chandrakirti Zende,
Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶14

Ms. A.A.Purav, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶15

Mr. Bhooshan R. Mandlik i/b. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for
Respondent No.3.

¶16

Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni for Respondent No.6.

¶17

Ms. Rupali Andhare, law officer – present in the Court.

¶18

CORAM : A.A.SAYED &
 S.G.DIGE, JJ.

¶19

DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2022
(THROUGH V.C.)

¶20

JUDGMENT (Per S.G.Dige,J)

¶21

By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the
order dated 11/07/2017 passed by Respondent No.1-Caste
Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘Scrutiny Committee’)
invalidating the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner as
‘Muslim Machchhimar (Daldi)’ .

¶22

2.The Divisional Officer, Pune issued a caste
certificate in favour of petitioner on 17/01/2017 as
Muslim Machchhimar (Daldi). The Petitioner submitted an
application to the Scrutiny Committee, Pune for
verification and validation of her caste certificate. The
Petitioner contested the general elections of Pune
Municipal Corporation from Ward No.24B, Ramtedki – Sayed
Nagar, Pune as an independent candidate for the seat which
was reserved for OBC (Woman) category. The Petitioner
was declared as elected as an independent candidate. The

¶23

3 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶24

Scrutiny Committee sent the matter to the Vigilance Cell
for enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell made enquiry
in respect of caste claim of Petitioner and submitted
report to the Scrutiny Committee. After receiving
Vigilance report, the Scrutiny Committee issued a show-
cause notice to the Petitioner. Petitioner submitted her
reply to the show-cause notice. Before the Scrutiny
Committee, respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 have objected for
issuance of validity of the caste certificate to the
petitioner. After hearing the parties the Scrutiny
Committee passed the order and rejected the caste claim of
the Petitioner. The said order is under challenge. During
pendency of Petition, Petitioner amended the Petition and
sought some additional reliefs.

¶25

3. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that the Petitioner is resident of Pune. Her
forefathers were from Dapoli. Earlier they were residing
together at Dapoli, Taluka – Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri and
traditional occupation of her family was fishing. They are
recognized as “Muslim Machchhimkar (Daldi)”. Learned
Counsel further submitted that Scrutiny Committee has not
considered various documents produced by Petitioner
alongwith her reply to the show-cause notice, the said
documents were not taken on record by the Scrutiny
Committee, which shows the Petitioner belongs to “Muslim
Machchhimkar (Daldi)”. The Petitioner’s family was engaged
in business of selling of fish but this fact was not
considered by Scrutiny Committee. From Vigilance Cell
report it is revealed that in local enquiry the witnesses
have stated that Petitioner belongs to “Muslim

¶26

4 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶27

Machchhimkar (Daldi)” but the said fact was not considered
by the Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by Scrutiny
Committee is devoid of merit, hence, liable to be set
aside.

¶28

4.It is the contention of learned AGP that documents
filed by Petitioner does not show her caste as “Muslim
Machhimar (Daldi)”. The Vigilance report does not support
Petitioner’s caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee has
passed order by considering submissions of all parties.
It was burden on the Petitioner to prove that her caste is
“Muslim Machchhimkar (Daldi)” but Petitioner could not
prove her caste. Hence, order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee is just and proper.

¶29

5.It is the contention of learned Counsel for
Respondent No.3 that Petitioner has failed to prove her
claim before the Scrutiny Committee that she belongs to
“Muslim Machhimar (Daldi)”. Petitioner has also failed to
prove that her forefathers were from the village Dapoli.
Nikahnama of Shri Bashirkhan on which Petitioner is
relying was not produced by Petitioner before Vigilance
Cell or Scrutiny Committee and the same is produced in the
present writ petition for the first time. The contentions
of Petitioner that her family was engaged in fishing
activities and business of selling fish are false.

¶30

6.We have considered the rival submissions of all
parties. We have perused the impugned order of Caste
Scrutiny Committee as well as documents produced on
record. The Petitioner is claiming that she belongs to

¶31

5 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶32

caste of “Muslim Macchimar (Daldi)”. The documents
produced by Petitioner simply records Muslim and do not
show her caste as “Muslim Macchimar (Daldi). In
Mohammedans there is no practice of mentioning caste or
sub-caste. In this context, report of Vigilance Cell
assumes significance. Vigilance Cell made enquiry with
local people at Hadapsar, Pune where Petitioner is
staying. Vigilance Cell also verified the documents
submitted by Petitioner. The concluding part of the
Vigilance Report reads as under:

¶33

“(1) Actual verification of the certificate of
the caste Macchimar Daldi of the candidate has
been made. Said certificate is issued by the
concerned office.

¶34

(2) On the school evidence of the candidate
entry of the caste is made as Musalman.

¶35

(3) From the school and other evidences produced
by the candidate the ancestors of the candidate
are not appearing as resident of Maharashtra
earlier to the year 1967. On the school
certificate of the candidate birth year is shown
as 1965 at Hadapsar, Pune. But there is no any
evidence of any of the elderly person showing
that they were residents of Maharashtra earlier
to the year 1967.

¶36

(4) The candidate has submitted the genealogy in
the prescribed form.

¶37

(5) The witnesses in the area of the candidate
have stated that the caste of the candidate is
Muslim Machimar. But there is no documentary
evidence showing the caste as Macchhimar Daldi
in Maharashtra earlier to the year 1967.
Similarly there is no any evidence of
candidate’s family was in the business of
Macchhimar.”

¶38

6 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶39

From this report it is revealed that there is no
documentary evidence to show that Petitioner belongs to
“Muslim Macchimar (Daldi)” On the basis of said Vigilance
report, show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by
Scrutiny Committee to file her say. After considering
submission of Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the
Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order. In the
impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee has observed that
considering documents produced on record, Vigilance Cell
Report and submissions of all parties, the Petitioner
failed to prove that she belongs to “Muslim Macchhimar
(Daldi)”.

¶40

7.The Petitioner had submitted six documents before
Scrutiny Committee which are as under:

¶41

i) caste certificate issued by Dy. Collector and Land Acquisition Officer 03, Pune on 17/01/2017.

¶42

ii) School leaving certificate of the Petitioner. iii) Death certificate of father of the Petitioner.

¶43

iv) Trade License issued in favour of Smt.Mehmunabi Sultan.

¶44

v) Certificate issued by Muslim OBC organization, Pune.

¶45

vi) Genealogy certificate of the Petitioner.

¶46

The Petitioner is relying on the document of trade
license dt.09/10/1985 for fish business in the name of
Smt.Mehmunabi Sultan issued by Executive Officer, Pune

¶47

7 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶48

Cantonment. In the Vigilance report it is mentioned that
original abstract of register in respect of Licence
No.910 dt.09/10/1985 was not found in the office. The
Petitioner has produced certificate dt.16/01/2014 issued
by Muslim OBC organization,Pune. This document can be
considered as supplementary evidence but there is no other
evidence in support of this sole document. The school
leaving certificate of petitioner and death certificate of
petitioner’s father does not show caste as Muslim
Macchimar (Daldi). It is the contention of learned counsel
for the Petitioner that Petitioner’s documents were not
taken on record by Scrutiny Committee which includes
Nikahnama of Shri Bashirkhan, uncle of Petitioner
dt.11/01/1961 which shows his caste was Fisherman (Daldi).
It is the contention of learned AGP that these documents
were not tendered before the Vigilance Cell or Scrutiny
Committee nor application was given for production of it
before the Scrutiny Committee.

¶49

8.After perusal of record, we find that document
Nikahnama was neither produced before Vigilance Cell nor
before Divisional Officer, Pune who issued caste
certificate to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not
mentioned about this Nikahnama in the written submission
given before the Scrutiny Committee. If as per Petitioner,
it is an important evidence to prove her caste claim then
question arises why Petitioner had not produced it before
Vigilance Cell, who has authority to make proper enquiry
of this document. In all the documents produced before
the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner has mentioned that
she is resident of Hadapsar, Taluka Pune. For the first

¶50

8 / 8 wp8802.2017.doc

¶51

time, Petitioner has stated in this petition that her
forefathers were from Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri. So it
appears to be an afterthought story by the Petitioner.
Respondent No.3 has also mentioned in his Affidavit-in-
Reply that these documents including Nikahnama were not
produced by the Petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee.
The Scrutiny Committee after considering all the evidence
has arrived at the finding that the Petitioner has failed
to prove that she belongs to ‘Muslim Macchimar (Daldi)’
caste. Hence we do not find merit in the submission of
learned Advocate for the Petitioner that these documents
were not considered by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶52

9.For the abovementioned reasons, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.
There is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is
accordingly dismissed.

¶53

 (S.G.DIGE, J) (A.A.SAYED, J)

¶54

Lata Panjwani, P.S.

Mrs. Ruksana Shamshuddin Inamdar v. the District Caste Certificate Validity Committee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Ruksana Shamshuddin Inamdar v. the District Caste Certificate Validity Committee 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

Chiranjivlal Badrinarayan Oza Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 18 Ors.

Mars Garage Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Amritlal Ladha Maru Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Shri. Mohammad Hussain Ishaque Khan Vs Shri. Abdul Gafoor Ahmad Pathan and Ors.

Appasaheb Gurusiddhappa Lakshetti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jawahar Hiralal Mehta through His Regd. Power of Attorney Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.