Krishan S/O Gopal Lodh, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Gopal S/O Laxman Lodh Vs the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, Thr. Its Chairman

¶1

wp4317.24.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:4922-DB

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4317 OF 2024

¶6

Krishan s/o Gopal Lodh, Aged about 16 years, Occ.- Student, through his natural guardian father Gopal s/o Laxman Lodh, Age about 51 years, Occ. – Agriculturist, R/o At Post Wadegaon, Tq. Balapur, District Akola.

¶7

…. PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, through its Chairman.

¶10

…. RESPONDENT

¶11

¶12

Mr. S.A. Mohta, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &

¶14

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 08-05-2025

¶16

JUDGMENT : (Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶17

Heard. RULE . Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petition questions the order dated 20-03-2024 passed by the respondent-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola (for short,

¶19

“ the Committee ”), thereby invalidating the petitioner's claim that he

¶20

belongs to the “ Pardeshi ” Other Backward Classes ( OBC ).

¶21

wp4317.24.odt

¶22

2

¶23

The petitioner claims that he belongs to the “Pardeshi” OBC. Accordingly, on 01-02-2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balapur, issued a Caste Certificate in his favour. He was taking education in 12^th Standard in Sunrise Dnyanpeeth Semi-English and Junior College Sasti, Tahsil-Patur, District-Akola. Through the Principal of the College, the petitioner submitted the proposal for verification of the caste to the respondent committee.

¶24

Since the Committee was dissatisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner, it had forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The Vigilance Cell had conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee on 20-12-2023, observing that the petitioner failed to satisfy the affinity test. The Committee, vide show cause notice, called upon him to explain the finding recorded in the report. In response, the petitioner appeared through his father and advocate and submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his father, considering the vigilance cell report and documents on record, the Committee vide impugned order dated 20-03-2024, rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Mr. S.A. Mohata, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted that the petitioner had produced eighteen

¶26

wp4317.24.odt

¶27

3

¶28

documents in support of his claim, out of which two are the Validity Certificates granted in favour of his cousin brother Raj Ravindra Lodh and cousin sister Priyanka Sanjay Lodh. Therefore, as per Rule 16, Explanation (3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, “ Rules of 2012 ”), the petitioner is also entitled to get the Validity Certificate. However, the Committee has not considered those Validity Certificates as they were issued without conducting the vigilance enquiry and, therefore, discarded the said Validity Certificates. He also submitted that as per the dictum laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the petitioner is entitled to get the validity certificate.

¶29

He further argued that the petitioner has also produced two preconstitutional era documents of 1938 and 1944 pertaining to his greatgrandfather and grandfather wherein their caste has been recorded as “i-yks-” (Pa.Lo) and “Lodhi Pardeshi Bha”. He submitted that Lodhi is not a caste, but his surname is mentioned as a prefix to the caste. Therefore, he submitted that the pre-constitutional era documents have more probative value as per the settled position of law. However, the Committee ignored the said documents, observing that the said entries are contrary to the ‘Pardeshi’ OBC entry in the list of the Other Backward Classes for the State

¶30

wp4317.24.odt

¶31

4

¶32

of Maharashtra. Thus, he canvassed that the reasons recorded by the Committee are contrary to Rule 16, Explanation (3) of the Rules of 2012 and the settled position of law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, he urges the petition to be allowed.

¶33

Per contra, Mr. A.A. Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has contended that in the document of 1944, the caste of the petitioner's grandfather was recorded as “Ik-yks-” (Pa.Lo.). Similarly, in the document of the great-grandfather, his caste was recorded as “LoddhiPardeshi-Bha”, which is not the caste recognised in the OBC list. Therefore, the Committee has rightly discarded those pre-constitutional era documents. He further argued that the Validity Certificates produced by the petitioner were granted without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules and without conducting the vigilance cell enquiry and, therefore, the dictum laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) is not helpful in support of his claim and, therefore, the Committee has rightly ignored the said Validity Certificates and hence, he submitted that passing of the order is just and proper. No interference is required in it.

¶34

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned order and record. We have also called the original record of the Committee in the present case, and the original record of Validity holders Raj and Priyanka, and we have gone through them and returned them.

¶35

wp4317.24.odt

¶36

5

¶37

Perusal of the original record with respect to two validity holders, we have been surprised to note that the Committee, without appreciating any document and recording their satisfaction or assigning any reason, passed the cryptic orders and granted the validity certificates in their favour. No date of order is also mentioned. It would be proper to reproduce the said orders of the then Committees passed in the cases of Raj and Priyanka as under :

¶38

“On the basis of evidence provided above, the Committee hereby certifies that the caste claim is found to be correct as under”

¶39

“ Valid ”.

¶40

Research Officer & Member Dy. Commissioner & Member Chairman Secretary, Divisional Caste Certificates Divisional Caste Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Certificate Scrutiny Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola. No.2, Akola. Akola.”

¶41

The details of the said Validity Certificates are as under :

¶42

Name	Relation	Validity No.	Date of Issuance of Validity Certifi- cates
Raj Ravindra Lodh	Cousin-Brother	843518	17-6-2014
Priyanka Sanjay Lodh	Cousin-Sister	886141	16-9-2014

¶43

It is to be noted that neither of the orders bears the date of passing of the order. However, on the Validity Certificates produced on record, it is apparent that Raj applied to the Committee on 12-10-2013 to verify his caste claim. Similarly, Priyanka applied to the Committee on 11-12-2013

¶44

wp4317.24.odt

¶45

6

¶46

to verify her caste claim. Undisputedly, both applications were submitted before the Committee after enacting and implementing the Rules of 2012.

¶47

As per Rule 14 of the Rules of 2012, any person who is desirous of availing of the benefits and concessions provided to the Schedule Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhisam, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Categories for any of the purposes as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall invariably submit an application in Form-16 with an affidavit in Form3 and Form-17 . However, in the original record of Priyanka, we do not find an application in Form-16 with an affidavit in Form-3 and Form-17 . Apart from this, the Committee has not recorded any reason to their satisfaction about her claim. However, the order of the Committee found in the printed proforma indicates that “on the basis of the evidence provided above, the Committee hereby certifies that the caste claim is found to be correct.” It does not appear that the Committee had verified the proposal submitted by Priyanka along with Form-16 with an affidavit in Form-3 in its proper perspective. As per Rule 17 of the Rules of 2012, on receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committee shall ensure that the application and the information supplied therewith are complete in all aspects and scrutinise the application properly. As per Rule 17(6), the Scrutiny Committee has to appreciate the statement of the applicant submitted in the form of an affidavit filed in consonance with Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Suppose the proposal is satisfied about the

¶48

wp4317.24.odt

¶49

7

¶50

genuineness of the OBC or any other caste or category, in that case, the Committee shall forthwith issue the Validity Certificate in Form-20 without any enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. However, the order does not indicate that the Committee has recorded their findings that they were satisfied with the genuineness of the documents produced concerning her caste claim; they merely recorded that the caste claim was correct and granted Validity. The order on the face of the record appears cryptic and unreasoned.

¶51

The cousin-brother, Raj , had submitted his application in Form-16 and affidavit in Form-17 . But, the Committee has not recorded any reason to their satisfaction about his claim. However, the order of the Committee found in the printed proforma indicates that “on the basis of the evidence provided above, the Committee hereby certifies that the caste claim is found to be correct.” It does not appear that the Committee had verified the proposal submitted by Raj along with Form-16 with an affidavit in Form-17 in its proper perspective

¶52

Similarly, under Rule 4 of the Rules of 2012, a person who claims caste certificate on account of belonging to a particular Caste/Tribe, for the purpose of grant of same, is enjoined upon to submit in their application the entire family tree including the names of persons to whom Validity had been granted. The very purpose of submitting such a family

¶53

wp4317.24.odt

¶54

8

¶55

tree is to enable the Committee at the first instance itself to establish the relationship between the persons named in the tree so that the caste claim could be considered on this basis. It is, therefore, apparent that any person making an application for caste claim has to place on record the entire family tree originating from a common ancestor as indicated in Clause 2 of Form-3 , which is irrespective of whether any of them has been granted validity or not. This is so far the reason that, in case the applicant is granted Validity, the genealogical tree which has been placed on record, which would then assist the Committee in a claim made by any other person in the genealogical tree to establish the relationship, and thereby granting a validity certificate. This would clearly indicate that once the applicant places a genealogical tree, the same would be impermissible to be modified or corrected in order to show a relationship to a person who is claimed to have been granted Validity. This would, however, be subject to an exception that in case the genealogical tree on the basis of which validity had been granted to a person indicates the name of the applicant, who is now claiming the validity.

¶56

In the present case, the petitioner relies on the Validity Certificates issued in favour of his cousin brother and sister. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the petitioner or his cousin-brother or sister has mentioned each other's names as a blood relative in their respective genealogical tree.

¶57

wp4317.24.odt

¶58

9

¶59

14. In the case of Priyanka , along with the affidavit, she has produced

¶60

the following genealogical tree :

¶61

“vktksck Hkxokunhu jkefnu
dks-cq-u- tkr ijns’kh lu 313 c
|
vkck y{e.k Hkxokufnu
dks-cq-u-e/;s y{e.k gk eqyxk
nk[koysyk vkgs
tkr ijns’kh lu 313 c
_|
| | |
eksBsckck oMhy dkdk
jfoanz lat; y{e.k xksiky
tkrhps likVkdj Vh-lh- tkr ijns’kh
lu 16-8-70
_|
| |
Lor% cfg.k
dq-fiz;adk lat; dq- g”kZy
Vh-Lkh- tkr ijns’kh lu 20-7-97
tkrhps likVdj”

¶62

In the case of Raj , the following genealogical tree was given :

¶63

“iatksck Hkxokunhu jkefnu
dks-cq-u- tkr ijns’kh lu 313 c
|
vkck y{e.k Hkxokufnu
oMykP;k dks-cq-u-e/;s eqyxk y{e.k gk
nk[koysyk vkgs
|
| | (dkdk½ |
oMhy lat; y{e.k
jfoanz y{e.k
Vh-Lkh- tkr ijns’kh lu 30-4-62
tkrhps likVkdj
_|
| |
Lor% cfg.k
jkt jfoanz d q -fdj.k
Vh-Lkh-tkr ijns’kh
lu 3-11-1994 tkrhps likVkdj”

¶64

Krishna’s name is not mentioned as a blood relative in either genealogical tree .

¶65

It is to be noted that the petitioner along with Form No.3 under

¶66

Rule 4(1) and 14 has mentioned Vanshavali affidavit as under :

¶67

wp4317.24.odt

¶68

10

¶69

“Hkxokufnu jkefnu yks/kh	¼ijns’kh½	¼izfrKkFkhZps Ik.ktksck½
y{e.k Hkxoku		¼izfrKkFkhZps vktksck½
xksiky y{e.k		¼izfrKkFkhZps oMhy½
fdz”.kk xksiky yks/k		¼tkrIkMrkG.kh izek.ki= vtZnkj½
jkt jfoanz yks/k		¼tkriMrkG.kh izek.ki= /kkjd½”

¶70

It would not indicate in the form of a genealogical tree, but only mention the names of his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father. However, it is evident that while submitting an explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner’s father gave the following genealogical tree.

¶71

Hkxokufnu

¶72

|____
| |
rqy’khjke iape

|
jfoanz|
|
y{e.k
_|__
|
lat;|_|________________
| | | |
gjhHkkÅ jkeizlkn dqlweckbZ ikoZrh

|
xksiky| |---|---|---|

¶73

It is pertinent to note that in the said genealogical tree, neither the petitioner's name nor the Validity holders Priyanka and Raj’s names were mentioned. Thus, he failed to demonstrate that the Validity holders are his blood relatives. He failed to establish his relationship with the Validity holders in the genealogical tree.

¶74

Apart from this, in both claims, documents were not forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The Committee has not recorded their satisfaction with the genuineness of the documents produced by the applicants therein in support of their claims. However, without recording any satisfaction about the genuineness of the documents, they have issued the Validity Certificates in their favour under Section 6 of the Act of 2001

¶75

wp4317.24.odt

¶76

11

¶77

without following the rules prescribed under the Rules of 2012. In such circumstances, in our view, the Validity Certificates granted in favour of Priyanka and Raj are not helpful for the petitioner in support of his claim.

¶78

The petitioner also relied on the documents of 1938 and 1944 pertaining to his great-grandfather and grandfather. However, in the said documents, their caste has been recorded as “Lodhi-Pardeshi-Bha” and “i-yks” (Pa. Lo.). These castes have not been enlisted in the Centre List. However, in the State List of the OBC, caste “ Pardeshi ” is at Sr.No.220, and caste Lodh, Lodha, and Lodhi are at Sr.No.336. However, castes by the name “i-yks-” (Pa. Lo.) or “ Lodhi-Pardeshi-Bha ” do not appear in the list of OBC. Therefore, in our opinion, those documents are also not helpful for the petitioner in support of his claim.

¶79

It is a settled principle that a person gets their caste by birth. It is a settled position of law that the pre-constitutional era entries have greater probative value than subsequent documents. As such, the preconstitutional era entries about the great-grandfather and grandfather wherein their caste has been recorded as “i-yks-” (Pa. Lo.) or “ LodhiPardeshi-Bha ” appear inconsistent with the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner owes an explanation about the same, which he has failed to furnish.

¶80

wp4317.24.odt

¶81

12

¶82

Section 8 of the 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 casts burden on the petitioner to prove the entries above are incorrect or that he belongs to “ Pardeshi ” OBC. The fact remains that the petitioner has failed to discharge such burden. On the contrary, those entries produced by the petitioner themselves show that they are inconsistent with his claim. Consequently, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he belongs to the “ Pardeshi ” OBC. Therefore, we do not find substance in his contention of the learned counsel in that regard.

¶83

Similarly, in Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad and others v. Deputy Director & Member-Secretary, the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, and others (Writ Petition No.12/2022 decided on 17-04-2023), the Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that “entries have to be read as it is and cannot be construed otherwise.”

¶84

In such circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act that he belongs to “ Pardeshi ” OBC. On the contrary, the committee is justified in recording the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to “ Pardeshi ” OBC. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the

¶85

wp4317.24.odt

¶86

13

¶87

impugned order. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The petition, being bereft of merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶88

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶89

adgokar

Krishan S/O Gopal Lodh, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Gopal S/O Laxman Lodh v. the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, Thr. Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan S/O Gopal Lodh, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Gopal S/O Laxman Lodh v. the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, Thr. Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayashree D/O Ashok Gotmare and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur Commissionerate, Nagpur Vs M/S. Ramabors Exim LLP. Alimited Partnership, Lucknow (U.P.)

M.R. Bahu-Uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Gonida, Thr. Preisident, Anil Rajendra Gondane vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept., Mumbai and Anr.

Bhavesh S/O Gajendrakumar Rannaware, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Gajendrakumar v. Rannaware Vs the Vice Chairman/ Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

Ajit Jasbir Singh Gandhi vs Union of India,Thr. Chairman, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Cilmate Change, New Delhi and Ors.

M/S. Ginmata Ginning Factory, Thr. Proprietor, Omprakash P. Choudhari vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors.