1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2419/2007 (Ambadas Govindrao Bhange vs. State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.D.Harode, Adv. H/F Shri S.R.Narnaware, Adv. for Petitioner Shri A.S.Fulzele, AGP, for R-1 Shri N.W.Sambre, Adv. for R-2 Shri V.V.Naik, Adv. for R-3 & 4 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 20 th JUNE, 2008. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents including the original file produced by the counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 3. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner particularly relying on the earlier decision rendered by the committee in the case of real brother of the petitioner i.e. Prakash, dated 15th July, 2005. In the impugned order, the Committee has referred to the inquiry report in the case of real brother Prakash, which mentions that the school entries of his father, grand father and grand father's brother were found to be “Koshti” recorded in the year 1961, 1933 and 1938 respectively. In other words, it was not “Halba”, 2 which is notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. The Committee has also noted that the order passed against the real brother of the petitioner has attained finality and has not been challenged. 4. According to the petitioner, the committee was bound to examine all other materials relied by the petitioner and consider the case independently. The decision passed in the case of Prakash, though real brother, was not binding on the petitioner. To buttress this submission, counsel for the petitioner has pressed into dictum in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 1996 SC 1338] which in turn refers to the observations in Ku.Madhuri Patil's case reported in 1994 AIR SCW 4116 in para 14 of that decision. The said paragraph is reproduced in Paragraph 15 in the case of Nagpure (supra). It is observed that the Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee ultimately record the finding and each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. These observations will be of no avail to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the Committee has not relied on the decision in the case of a distant relative or for that matter a relative as such, but of the real brother of the petitioner. The said opinion was recorded by the Committee on merits after considering all aspects of the matter. 3 5. The fact that the school entries of the father, grand father and grand father's brother have been recorded as “Koshti” in the year 1961, 1933 and 1938 respectively, are not challenged by the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge any of the findings recorded by the Committee in the case of the petitioner's brother, which considered all relevant aspects of the matter. As that was a decision in the case of real brother, the committee was naturally bound to follow the same view. 6. Be that as it may, from the original file which was produced before us, we have noticed that even in the inquiry in respect of the petitioner, the vigilance Cell has reported that the petitioner does not belong to “Halba” tribe as such. We are conscious of the fact that this is not the opinion recorded by the Committee. But to reassure ourselves that the official record supports the case of the petitioner, we thought of examining the original file. 7. As aforesaid, the materials on record would not support the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to “Halba”, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. A priori, the question of making any further inquiry into the matter would not arise unless the petitioner was to challenge the finding/opinion of the Committee which has been recorded in the case of his real brother. That is not the scope of the present petition. No relief with regard to the said decision is asked for in 4 the petition. On the other hand, we find from the original record which was produced before us that after the decision was passed against the real brother of the petitioner on 15th July, 2005, the petitioner in his Writ Petition filed undertaking dated 22nd December, 2006, which has not been disclosed in this petition, which reads thus- UNDERTAKING The above named petitioner humbly undertakes that he and his progeny shall not claim any benefits in future as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, if this Hon'ble Court consider the case of the petitioner in view of the Apex Court Judgment in Milind Katwar's case reported in Mah.L.J. 2001 Vol-1, Page-1. 8. Suffice it to observe that no fault can be found with the ultimate conclusion reached by the committee in the fact situation of the present case. The petitioner cannot be heard to claim benefit of decision in Madhuri Patil's case for the simple reason that petitioner asserted that he belonged to “Halba” community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. In the inquiry, however, it is found that the said claim is false and the petitioner in fact belongs to “Koshti” community. 9. If it is so, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dattatraya Namdeo Mendhekar & ors (2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 720), even the said prayer of the petitioner will have to be rejected. Recently this Court had occasion to examine such plea, as can be seen from the opinion 5 recorded in order dated 22nd April, 2008 in W.P. No. 6636/05 in the case of Shri Shrikant vs. State & ors; order dated 5th May, 2008 in W.P. No. 2864/07 in the case of Prabhakar Anandrao Umredkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others and lastly order dated 6th June 2008 in W.P. No. 6510/06 in the case of Shivshankar vs. S.C.Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. 10. Following the same opinion, we reject the stand of the petitioner to give protection to the petitioner. 11. Hence, this petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit