Ladda 1 wp-3924-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3924 of 2011. Deepesh Ramesh Chang ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. Mr R. K. Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonavane, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- 22nd June, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Sonavane, Assistant Government Pleader for the State and perused the petition. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Mumbai dated 28/29th April, 2011, whereby the caste claim of the Ladda 2 wp-3924-11.doc petitioner as belonging to Bawa (Nomadic Tribe) came to be invalidated. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner produced the caste certificate dated 19.6.2004 issued by Deputy Collector, Thane wherein the caste mentioned is Bawa. The petitioner also submitted school leaving certificate dated 1.6.2005 issued by the Headmaster of Smt Sushiladevi Deshmukh Vidyalaya and Junior College, Airoli, Navi Mumbai where the caste of the petitioner is shown as Sindhi Bava. It is contended that the other document such as caste certificate issued by the Deputy Collector dated 21.6.2004 in respect of the cousin uncle of the petitioner, the caste certificate dated 11.6.2004 in respect of cousin brother and the caste certificate of cousin aunt of the petitioner dated 4.7.2003 issued by the Deputy Collector wherein the caste mentioned is Bawa were also submitted. 4. The counsel for the petitioner states that all these documents submitted by the petitioner were discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that these documents are issued by the Authority after 1961, which is the year when Ladda 3 wp-3924-11.doc Bawa community was included in the category of Nomadic Tribe and, therefore, they do not have much probative value. The Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this finding of the Committee is bad in law since these are the certificates issued by the Competent Authority wherein the caste mentioned is Bawa and, therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting these documents only on the above referred ground. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the instant case though the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not applied the affinity test and in the absence thereof the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s mother who was present at the time of hearing before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, the Committee did not ask her to provide details regarding customs, tradition, trade, festivals, ceremonies of Bawa community. Since the Committee itself failed to ask either the petitioner or his mother to provide the information in respect of customs, tradition, etc. it is not open for the Committee to hold that the petitioner failed to establish affinity with the Bawa community. Ladda 4 wp-3924-11.doc 6. It is submitted that the Bawa Samaj has also issued certificate dated 1st July, 2004 in favour of the petitioner declaring the petitioner to be a member of the Bawa community. This evidence also has been ignored by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is bad in law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the Petitioner did not furnish any document prior to 1961. Caste Bawa for the first time was included in the category of Nomadic Tribe in the year 1961 and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Committee in respect of the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner is just and proper. It is further contended that neither the petitioner nor his relative gave any information of any kind regarding customs, tradition, festival ceremonies, etc. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is sustainable in law. 8. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order. 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the certificates Ladda 5 wp-3924-11.doc submitted by the petitioner pertaining to himself, his uncle, cousin-uncle and cousin-brother are issued by the Authorities after 1961. It is also not in dispute that the Bawa community included in the category of Nomadic Tribe in the year 1961. It is, in this context, it was incumbent as well as necessary for the petitioner to submit documentary evidence prior to 1961. Once any community is included in any of the reserved category, certificates issued by the Authorities thereafter though, cannot be discarded merely because they are issued after the said caste is included in a particular category, however, they virtually have very little probative value and, therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in our view, is justified in holding that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner is inadequate to establish that the petitioner belongs to Bawa community. The certificate issued by Bawa Samaj is also of the year 2004 which did not further the case of the petitioner. 10. So far as the affinity test is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has specifically observed that neither the father, uncle, grand-father, aunt or any of them has given any information of Ladda 6 wp-3924-11.doc any kind regarding customs, traditions, trade, festivals, ceremonies, occupation, etc of Bawa community. The stand of the petitioner that though his mother was present along with him at the time of hearing, the Committee failed to ask her about the customs, tradition, etc. is misconceived. Responsibility to establish affinity with the Bawa community by adducing convincing evidence in respect of customs traditions, trade, etc of Bawa community before the Caste Scrutiny Committee was of the petitioner. In the instant case, no steps were taken either by the petitioner or by his relative in this regard and in absence thereof the Caste Scrutiny Committee in our view was justified in holding that the petitioner failed to establish affinity with the Bawa community. 11. For the reasons stated herein above, the petition suffers from lack of merit. Same is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)