-1- mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.5424 of 2008 Avinash Ravindra Patil ..Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Shri R.K.Mendadkar for petitioner Shri C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & J.N.PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA S.J.KATHAWALLA S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. JJ. JJ. 20th November, 2008 20th November, 2008 20th November, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 21st March, 2007 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which invalidated the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer, Alibag, District Raigad, on 14th October, 1997 certifying the petitioner as belonging to the caste "Mahadev Koli" which is recognised as scheduled caste. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the caste certificate the petitioner was -2- granted admission in engineering degree course during the Academic Year 2005-06 and presently the petitioner is in the last year of the engineering degree course. It is the case of the petitioner that he was shocked and surprised to receive the impugned order dated 21st March, 2007 invalidating his caste certificate and, therefore, he has approached this Court after almost a period of one year impugning the said decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 4. Shri Mendadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective by ignoring various decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court such as decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1996(3) SCC 685 and so on. It is contended that merely because the entry in the record of the relatives of the petitioner of their caste as "Koli" cannot be considered to deny the fact that the petitioner belongs to "Mahadev Koli" which is scheduled tribe. It is submitted that the Caste -3- Scrutiny Committee has proceeded on the basis of the petitioner’s relatives’ caste being shown as "Koli" which is recognised as "Other Backward Class" in the State of Maharashtra and by applying the affinity test. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because the Scrutiny Committee cannot expect the candidate to prove his case in so far as the affinity with the tribe claimed by him is concerned by bringing on record cent percent evidence as held by this Court in Varsha Dhanawat Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(4) MLJ 676. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has to establish that he belongs to the caste "Mahadev Koli" by furnishing relevant certificate and to great extent was also able to pass the affinity test as he has given all necessary particulars known to him before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is now prosecuting his engineering course in the last year and, therefore, at this stage the Court should consider his case as an exception and allow the petitioner to conclude his degree course and in -4- support of his case the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Subhash Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2006)7 SCC 501 as well as in the case of Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Civil Appeal No.2079 of 2008 where the Supreme Court has carved out an exception by applying the principles of doctrine of proportionality based on Wednesbury reasonableness. It is submitted that it is a fit case where the ratio of the above judgments is clearly applicable and, therefore, this Court should quash and set aside the impugned order or in the alternative allow the petitioner to conclude his course. We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the authorities cited by the learned Counsel. There is no doubt in our mind that the petitioner was, when he obtained the caste certificate, well conversant and aware of the fact that he does not belong to "Mahadev Koli" but factually belongs to caste "Koli" which is evident from the documents examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and enquiry conducted by the vigilance cell. Not only that the petitioner’s grand father’s caste is found to be -5- recorded as "Koli" as long back as in the year 1942 though that of his father in the year 1970 has been recorded as "Mahadev Koli" on the basis of which the petitioner was able to obtain the certificate. When information was solicited from the petitioner regarding the traits, characteristics and customs, the petitioner’s grand father stated that their traditional occupation is fishing and Khanodba and Ekvira are the deities of the family and Koli is the dialect. He gave the surnames as Tare, Hawaldar, Patil, Chay Nakhawa, Bonganekar, Baji etc. surnames of his relatives. He gave Naralipornima as the festival of his family and community and Koli being their customary dance. The information of traits, characteristics and customs match with that of "Mahadev Koli" and, therefore, we find that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not commit any error or illegality in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to "Mahadev Koli" and was justified in invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner. 6. In so far as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the -6- alternative consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically as the petitioner has not obtained the caste certificate by practicing fraud but he got it in usual course under the belief that he does belong to the caste "Mahadev Koli". We do not accept this contention in the backdrop of the finding of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is now settled that the person who has enjoyed the benefits by obtaining false caste certificate and claimed benefits meant for the persons belonging to scheduled tribe, does not deserve any sympathy and, therefore, merely because the petitioner has been successful in prosecuting his study on the basis of invalid caste certificate and he is in final year, no sympathy can be shown to him. Therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.)