1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1528 OF 2010. Gulam Amjad s/o Gulam Mustafa, age 55 years, occu. Business, r/o Silk Mills Colony, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Scheduled Castes, VJNT, OBC & Spl.BC Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT: (Per Shinde,J) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of 2 respondents. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing at the stage of admission. 2. This petition takes exception to the decision dated 21st January, 2010 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner by the respondent No.2 Committee. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that “Momin” caste/community is recognized as Other Backward Class category. On 3rd January, 2009 the petitioner applied for verification of his caste claim and submitted voluminous documents in support of his caste claim including the certificate of validity issued in favour of his son Shakeeb Mohammad Gulam Amjad dated 3.2.2001 and another son namely, Mohammad Shoeb Gulam Amjad dated 30.3.2005. On 3rd January, 2009, the petitioner received copy of the report of inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell. As per directions of the respondent No.2 Committee, the petitioner remained present before the Committee on 25th March, 2009, 9th June, 2009, 11th August, 2009, 22nd September, 2009 and 3rd November, 2009. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that he correctly mentioned the traits, characteristics, social practices followed, rites, rituals and festivals performed by the members belonging to “Momin” community. However, by the impugned decision, the Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 Committee was not justified in ignoring the entries in the Registers maintained by the Aurangabad Silk Mills, Aurangabad for the period from 1969 to 1971 as well as the letter of appointment dated 25th May, 1956 in which, word “Momin” was affixed to the name of the father of the petitioner, holding that said record was of a private mill. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 failed to appreciate that the caste claim of the sons of the petitioner is verified and found valid and, therefore, the caste of the petitioner could not be different than that of his sons. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4 respondent No.2 Committee vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner failed to establish his case and the respondent Committee has appreciated the documents as well as evidence brought on record by the petitioner and then only passed the impugned decision. Therefore, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, in support of his caste claim, submitted following documents before the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee: (1) The certificate of validity issued in favour of the son of the petitioner namely, Shri Shakeeb Mohammad Gulam Amjad dated 3.2.2001. (2) The certificate of validity issued in favour of his another son, namely, Shri Mohammad Shoeb Gulam Amjad dated 30.3.2005. (3) Copy of the affidavit containing genealogy executed by the petitioner dated 2.1.2009. (4) Copy of the certificate dated 13.6.2000 5 in respect of petitioner issued by Head Mistress, Moin-ul-Uloom High School, Aurangabad. (5) Copy of the extract of general school register in respect of the petitioner issued by the Head Master, Maulana Azad High School, Aurangabad. (6) Copy of extract of payment register during the period between 1.1.1971 and 22.1.1971 issued by Aurangabad Silk Mills,Aurangabad showing that his father was paid the salary / wages wherein his designation was shown as “Bunkar” i.e. weaver. (7) The copy of the appointment letter dated 22.5.1956 issued by the Manager, Aurangabad Silk Mill, Aurangabad in Urdu. (8) The copy of the appointment letter dated 22.5.1956 issued by the Manager, Aurangabad Silk Mills, Aurangabad English translation of Urdu document. (9) The copy of the letter dated 1.2.2006 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Aurangabad referring to the name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Gulam Mustafa Mohammad Gaus. 6 (10) Extract of property card issued on 9.8.2002 by the City Surveyor, Aurangabad. (11) Copy of the list of members of Aurangabad Silk Mill Industrial Housing Society, Aurangabad dated 30.6.1969. (12) Copy of the notice informing the members of the housing society to attend the meeting fixed on 11.12.1970 containing the name of father of the petitioner. (13) Copy of the driving license dated 31.12.1974 issued by the R.T.O. Office, Aurangabad showing the name of the petitioner as “Momin”. 7. On perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it clearly appears that his sons namely, Shakeeb Mohammad Gulam Amjad and Mohammad Shoeb Gulam Amjad applied for validation of their caste claim and the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad had issued caste validity certificates dated 3.2.2001 and 30.3.2005, respectively, in their favour. Copy of the School leaving certificate of the petitioner was also placed on record. However, the committee has observed that though the word 7 “Momin” is written in the school leaving certificate of the petitioner, the ink which is used to write the word “Momin” appears to be different. The Committee has also observed that it appears that “Momin” word is subsequently added. In our view, such opinion could be recorded by the Committee only after proper inquiry into that aspect and not otherwise. It is true that word “Momin” is written in the service record of the petitioner and the said record is maintained by the Aurangabad Silk Mills, Aurangabad, which is a private company. However, on perusal of other documents placed on record including validation certificates of the sons of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not belong to “Momin” community. 8. In so far as other documents filed by the petitioner in respect of his relatives i.e. aunt, uncle, grand father are concerned, the Committee has observed that those documents are not prior to 1967. In our opinion, though the documents prior to 1967 may carry more probative value yet, 8 the documents after the year 1967 cannot be said to have no evidentiary value. Those documents also carry some evidentiary value. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and more particularly, in view of the fact that the Committee has validated the caste certificates of the sons of the petitioner, we are inclined to allow this petition. 9. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned decision of the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee dated 21st January, 2010 is quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to “Momin” community and the respondent No.2 Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate of “Momin” to the petitioner within eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] kadam/*