1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.242 OF 2006 Atul s/o Jaipal Pardeshi .. Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra; 2. The Scheduled Castes, Vimukt Jati Nomadic Tribes, ..., Nasik, 3. The Collector, Nasik. 4. The Deputy Collector and the Spl Land Acquisition officer, Nasik. .. Respondents Mr. Jagdish G Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos 1 to 4. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 03/11/2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per D.B.Bhosale, J.) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29th August,2005 passed by the Scheduled Caste, Vimukt Jati, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny committee, Nasik Division, Nasik (for short, T 2 “the Scrutiny Committee”), invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim as belonging to Hindu Pardeshi-Bhamta (Vimukt Jati). 2. The petitioner is prosecuting B.Sc course in K.T.H.M.College, Nasik. His caste certificate as Pardeshi-Bhamta (Vimukt Jati) was forwarded through the Principal of the college with a forwarding letter dated 24.9.2002, to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of an inquiry conducted by Vigilance Cell and after making reference to the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his caste claim, rejected his claim, mainly, on the ground that he failed to produce documents prior to 1961. The Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order, has made reference to the report of the Vigilance Cell and to about eight documents produced by the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that after making reference to all the eight documents, without making any comments in respect thereof, the Scrutiny Committee relying upon the Government Resolution No.CBC 1361-M dated 21.11.1961, has rejected the petitioner’s caste claim. It is observed that the petitioner failed to produce documents prior to 21.11.1961, as required under the said Government Resolution to establish his caste claim. The impugned order further records that due opportunity was given 3 to the petitioner to establish his caste claim by producing more documents on 25.4.2005 and 16.8.2005 and he was also called for personal hearing. The order further records that the petitioner failed to produce old documents in support of his claim. 3. It is against this backdrop, Mr Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Scrutiny committee did not supply a copy of the vigilance inquiry report to the petitioner and that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. The order of the Scrutiny Committee, therefore, according to Mr Reddy, is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner in proper perspective and has wrongly rejected his claim on the ground that he could not and did not produce any old document in support of his claim. He submitted that the home inquiry, as contemplated in Kum.Madhuri Patil’s case (AIR 1995 SC 94), was also not conducted, which is mandatory in nature. He submitted that the impugned order suffers from total non application of mind and violative of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court from time to time. He then submitted that the Government Resolution dated 21.11.1961, in 4 view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kum.Madhuri Patil’s case, ceased to have any legal existence and the reliance placed by the Scrutiny Committee for invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim of the petitioner is, therefore, wrong and illegal. He then submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Scrutiny committee for fresh hearing. Mr Sonawane, learned AGP, did not dispute that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner and that a copy of the vigilance report was also not given to the petitioner. He could not make a positive statement whether home inquiry was made. 4. We have perused the impugned order and the other material placed on record. It is not clear from the order whether the petitioner was heard personally by the Committee. It is also not clear whether home inquiry was conducted, inasmuch as, statements of the petitioner and his relatives were recorded. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that no home inquiry was conducted. It is also not clear from the order whether a copy of the report of the Vigilance Inquiry was supplied to the petitioner. From perusal of the order, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee has not independently considered 5 the documents on record and has recorded its reasons for rejecting the documents produced in support of the claim. The Scrutiny committee has rejected the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that he did not produce any document prior to 1961. 5. It is now well settled that caste claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that documents produced by a candidate in support of his claim cannot be construed as conclusive proof for the reason that they are not old documents, namely, documents prior to the year 1950. The Committee is expected to bear in mind that the issue needs to be adjudicated on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and find out whether the documents produced on record are sufficient to be construed as conclusive proof to hold that the candidate belongs to a particular category. If no evidence prior to 1950 and/or 1960, is available, that, by itself, does not render the claim weak in any manner. It is also well settled that the anthropological factors including traits, customs and other material which would identify a candidate need to be considered. This has to be done based upon a specialized study by a person conversant with the traits, customs and other anthropological factors. In the absence of old documents, this becomes an important piece of evidence to examine a claim of the party. In the present case, 6 the Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have examined the case in proper perspective. The Scrutiny Committee, being a fact finding authority, and which decides valuable rights of the parties in respect of their caste, any decision of the Committee has serious repercussion on the candidate and members of his family. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, is expected to analyse the issue in proper perspective and apply judicious mind while deciding the caste claim. Having perused the impugned order in the light of the settled position of law, so also in the light of the fact that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, we make the rule absolute in terms of this judgment and pass the following order. (i) The order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The Scrutiny Committee shall examine the petitioner’s caste claim after following the due procedure and in the light of this Judgment afresh. The Scrutiny Committee shall endeavour to examine the caste claim of the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) We shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion 7 on merits of the case and the Scrutiny Committee shall deal with the petitioner’s claim on merits and in accordance with law. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J)