1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4923 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 4923 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 4923 OF 2006 Prakash S.Patil } Aged Adult-Adult, Occu.-Agriculture } Residing at Plot No.6, Ruikar Colony } "E" Ward, Kolhapur } .. Petitioner V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra } 2. Committee for Scrutiny and } Verification of Caste Claim, Pune. } 3. Ramesh Anantro Bulbule } Adult, Residing at Plot No.198, } "E"Ward, Ruikar Colony, Kolhapur. } .. Respondents Ms.Dipti Pawar i/b. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cordozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.R.s.Apte i/b. M.S.Lagu for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE,J.) :- ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE,J.) :- ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE,J.) :- . The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the regional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune. . The brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are as under : 1. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to "Kunabi" caste which is recognized as "Other Backward Caste" in State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 contested the ward elections for Kolhapur Municipal Corporation which took place in the year 2005. Respondent No.3 has lost the election. 2 2. The Respondent No.3 filed a complaint on 4th November, 2005 challenging the Petitioners caste claim. The said complaint was filed before the Scrutiny Committee, Pune. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune issued notice to the Petitioner. The vigilance squad did the necessary inquiry in the matter as directed by the said Committee. 3. The Petitioner submitted as many as 12 documents before the Committee as mentioned here in below : 1. Caste Certificate dated 11.7.2005 as belonging to Kunabi Register No.7082 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karveer to Shri Prakash Patil. 2. School Leaving Certificate dated 15.6.2005 issued by the Head Master Private High School, Register No.7082. The Caste Column shows as "Hindu Maratha". Date of Birth is 1.5.1957. 3. Shri Shankar Tukaram Patil, candidate’s father. His school leaving certificate issued by the Central School Kumarkodoli, Dist. Kolhapur, General Register No.3/224 shows the religion and caste as Hindu Maratha and date of birth as 13.8.1922. 4. Candidate’s affidavit dated 31.10.2005 as belonging to the caste Kunabi/Imav in relation to the election. 5. The candidate’s affidavit dated 29.10.2005 sworn before the Executive magistrate, Panhala showing his genealogy. 3 6. The right extract issued by Tahsil Office, Panhala, entries in record are not to be found. 7. Birth extract issued by Tahsil, Panhala in the year 1983 in which the names of the father and grand father is Raoji Bin Ranoji and the name of son is shown as Dnyanu. The date of birth is 14.7.1993. The caste column shown as "Ku". 8. The death extract of Balu, son of Raoji Ranoji Patil issued by Tahsil Office, Panhala. The caste is shown as Kunabi. The date of death is 18.1.1888. 9. The birth extract of Tuka, whose father and grant father’s name is Raoji Ranoji Limbaji, issued in the year 1887. The date of birth is 6.12.1887. the caste is shown as "Kunabi". 10. The Birth extract of Krishna, the name of father and Ajoba being Raoji Bin Ranoji Patil issued in the year 1811. The date of birth is 28.4.1811 and the caste is shown as "Kunabi". 11. The birth extract of Rajaram, name of the father and grand father Keshav Dnyanu Patil issued by Tahsil Office, Panhala in the year 1937, the date of birth 20.3.1937. the caste is shown as "Ku". 12. The affidavit of Hussain, who knows Modi script and who has transcripted the extract of birth and death into Marathi (Deonagari). 4. The Petitioner also filed an affidavit before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 10th March, 2006 in which he has explained genealogical position. The Caste Scrutiny Committee issued notice to the Petitioner on 7th May, 2006. The Petitioner received the same on 11th July, 2006. The Caste Scrutiny Committee heard the matter on 12th July, 2006 and passed an order invalidating the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner in which caste "Kunabi" was mentioned. 4 5. The Petitioner filed present writ petition challenging the above mentioned order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune by which caste claim of the Petitioner as "Kunabi" came to be invalidated. 6. The Petition was heard for admission on 28th July, 2006 by this Court and notices were issued to the Respondents. Pending admission ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted in favour of the Petitioner. When the matter came up for hearing on 14th September, 2006 rule was issued in the matter. Today matter is before us for final hearing. 7. During the course of final hearing of the matter, the learned advocate Ms.Dipti Pawar appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, the impugned order by the Committee is passed hurriedly and many important documents submitted by the Petitioner are overlooked by the Committee. It is further contended that the report of the vigilance squad was not supplied to the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner could not advance any arguments on the said report. It is further submitted by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not referred to the Petitioners affidavit dated 10th March, 2006 filed 5 before the Committee in which the Petitioner has explained his genealogical position. It is further contended that though notice was issued by the Committee on 7th May, 2006, Petitioner received the said notice on 11th July, 2006. The hearing was conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 12th July, 2006 and order invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner as "Kunabi" has been passed by the Committee on same day. 8. The Advocate for the Petitioner invited our attention to the documents annexed to the Petition i.e. Extract of birth, death of his great grand father in which Caste is mentioned as "Kunabi". She also invited our attention to the fact that even in the record of the brother of great grandfather of the Petitioner caste is recorded as "Kunabi". It is further contended that the Committee has also taken note of the Vigilance Committees report certifying its prima facie satisfaction about the Petitioners caste claim. The Committee, however, assumed that the documents of great grandfather and the Petitioners father to be false. It is further contended that the Committee proceeded on hypothetical facts by overlooking actual documents submitted before the Committee. The Committee went into an exercise of hypothetical facts and came to the wrong conclusion that the Petitioners great grandfather 6 was born in 1932. It is contended by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner that, when the documentary proof is available before the Committee, the exercise undertaken by the Committee on the hypothetical facts was absolutely unwarranted and resulted into injustice to the Petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that, the cousin grandfather of the candidate Krishna Ravji Bin Ravji Patil is born on 18th July, 1891 and the entry in the caste column is "Kunabi". Shri Tuka Ravji Nimbaji Patil which is candidates cousin great grandfather born on 18th August 1989 and the entry in the caste column is "Kunabi" . It is further pointed out that Shri Balu s/o. Ravji Ranoji is cousin great grandfather of the candidate and the entry in the caste claim is "Kunabi". It is further pointed out that, Shri Rajan Keshav Dnyanu Patil Petitioner’s cousin uncle born in 1937 and entry in the caste claim is "Ku". It is the case of the Petitioner that all these documents which are referred above are seen by the Vigilance squad and it is observed in the said report that there is no tampering with the documents and handwriting thereon. 7 It is further case of the Petitioner that the Vigilance Squad has conducted the school, home and official inquiry and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner belongs to casts "Kunabi". 10. It is further submitted that, the impugned order is passed by the Chairman, a Member and Research Officer of the Scrutiny Committee, and thus bad in law for want of valid quorum. 11. The Petitioner relying on the documents submitted before the Committee and report of the Vigilance Squad submitted that the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste certificate belonging to "Kunabi" was not correct and deserves to be quashed and set aside by further declaration that, the Petitioner belongs to the "Kunabi" caste. 12. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.P.S.Cardozo appearing for the Respondent State as well as for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune submitted that, order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 19th July, 2006 is after proper appreciation of the evidence and does not called for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The A.G.P. strongly supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that petition is without merit and same may be dismissed. 8 13. The Advocate Mr.R.S.Apte, appearing for the Complainant also supported the stand taken by the Assistant Govt.Pleader and in the alternative submitted that, in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the Scrutiny Committee has not properly appreciated the evidence on the record, the matter should be remanded back to the Committee for fresh consideration. 14. After hearing respective parties, we are of the opinion that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not properly appreciated the documents produced by the Petitioner, report submitted by the Vigilance Squad and affidavit of the Petitioner in which his genealogy is explained. 15. We proceeded to examine annexures to the Petition which were part of the record before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the light of decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. V/s. Additional Commissioner, Triable Development and Ors., reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court cases 241. It is observed in paragraph 10 of the said Judgment that "the entries in the school register preceding the constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu social order has its reflection in all entries in the public record." 9 . In the light of the above observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be relevant to examine the documents at Sr.No.8 to 11 as mentioned in paragraph 3 hereinabove and report submitted by the Vigilance Squad. 16. The Petitioner filed affidavit before the Committee and produced his genealogy. According to said affidavit, the documents which is mentioned at Sr.No. 8, the death extract of Balu, the son of Ravji Ranoji Patil issued by Tahsil office Panhala is cousin great grandfather of the Petitioner and caste is mentioned in said extract is shown as "Kunabi" and the date is occurred on 18th January, 1888. the documents at Sr.No.9 which is birth extract of Tuka, whose father and grandfathers name is Ravji Ranoji Limbaji issued in the year 1887 is also cousin great grandfather of the petitioner. In the said extract / certificate the caste is shown as "Kunabi". The documents at Sr.No.10 which is birth extract of Kirshna, the name of father and Ajoba being Ravji bin Ranoji Patil issued in the year 1811, the date of birth is shown 20th April, 1811 and the caste is shown as "Kunabi". The relations of the Petitioner is shown in genealogy with Shri Kirshna is cousin great grandfather. 10 17. The documents at Sr.No.11 which is the birth extract of Rajaram, name of father and grandfather Keshav Dnyanu Patil issued by Tahsil office Panhala in the year 1937 and the date of birth is 20.7.1937. The caste is shown as "Ku". The relationship with the present Petitioner with said Rajaram is cousin uncle. 18. We have carefully read the documents at Sr.Nos. 8 to 11 which are annexed to the Petition and found that the caste of all these persons is mentioned as "Kunabi". In the light of observations in paragraph 10 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. V/s. Additional Commissioner Triable Development and others, we have to hold that the entries in the public records preceding the constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste and therefore the caste "Kunabi" mentioned in the documents from Sr.No. 8 to 11 unequivocally demonstrates that the Petitioners four fathers were from "Kunabi" caste. 19. The second aspect which we would like to examine is about report submitted by the Vigilance Squad. As observed above that the entry in the caste column of the birth extract of the candidate’s real great grandfather, cousin great grandfather and cousin uncle 11 shows "Kunabi" and "Ku". The paragraph 2 and 3 of the decision by the caste scrutiny committee observes thus:- . "However, the candidate has submitted the birth extract of Dnyanu Raoji Bin Ranoji Patil dated 15.7.1893. The entry in the caste column is "Ku". The cousin great grand father of the candidate Krishna Raoji bin Raoji Patil is shown as 18.7.1981 and the entry in the caste column is "Kunabi". Tuka Raoji Ranoji Limbaji Patil who is candidate’s cousin great grand father was born on 18.8.1898. The entry in the caste column is "Kunabi". Balu son of Raoji Ranoji is cousin great grand father of the candidate and entry in the caste column is "Kunabi". Rajaram Keshav Dnyanu Patil candidate’s cousin uncle is born in 1937 and entry in the caste column is "Ku". All these documents are seen by the Vigilance Squad. It is observed that there is no tampering with the documents and handwriting thereon. The Vigilance squad has conducted the home enquiry at the original village of the candidate i.e. "Kodoli" and statement of Shri Sarjerao Mali, aged 65 years, Tukaram Havel aged 52, Bharat Patil aged 36 are recorded and they have testified that the candidate is Kunabi by caste. 3. The vigilance committee has finally concluded after the school, home and official enquiry that the candidate Prakash Shankarrao Patil belongs to caste Kunabi." 20. We have examined the observations of the Caste Scrutiny Committee about the Vigilance Squad report and we are of the opinion that the Committee failed to properly appreciate the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in sub paragraph 7 of paragraph 13 i.e. 12 13(7) In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the letter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. Therefore the committee ought to have accepted the report submitted by the Vigilance Squad which was in favour of the petitioner since same was genuine and true. 21. After careful perusal of the Scrutiny committee’s reasoning we find that the Committee has overlooked the important documents and went into exercise of hypothetical facts and figures ignoring the material evidence which was produced on record and came to the erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner does not belong to "Kunabi" caste. The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner is contrary to the important documentary evidence i.e. old documents produced on record, which clearly indicates that four fathers of the Petitioner were from "Kunabi" caste and the same entries in those documents were prior to 1950. 22. Since at list 4 documents produced by the petitioner clearly disclosed that his real great grandfather, cousin great grandfather, cousin grand 13 father and cousin uncle are from "Kunabi" caste and in the light of paragraph 10 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil V/s. Additional Commissioner, as the entries in those documents have great probative value the Committee should have validated the Caste certificate of the Petitioner. Apart from this, the Vigilance squad which was appointed by the Committee, after school, home and official enquiry finally concluded that the Petitioner belongs to caste "Kunabi". 23. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the Petitioner Prakash Shankarrao Patil belongs to "Kunabi" caste. The writ petition succeeds. :: O R D E R :: . The Petition is allowed. 2. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Pune in Proceeding No.2627 dated 12th July, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is hereby declared that the Petitioner belongs to the Kunabi-OBC Caste and the Scrutiny Committed is hereby directed to issue caste validation certificate as a Kunabi-OBC to the Petitioner. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)