wp3137.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3137 OF 2011 Dineshsing Bharatsing Rajput ...Petitioner Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, seeks leave to delete the name of the respondent No.2. Allowed to be deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 The present petition impugns the order of the Scrutiny Committee, whereby the petitioner's claim that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati has been disallowed. The main reason for wp3137.11 -2- disallowing his claim is that, according to the committee, the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence that he belongs to this community. Apart from this, according to the committee, the affinity test did not indicate that the petitioner was a Rajput Bhamta. 3 The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that he had placed on record the validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's cousin (father's brother's son), which has been disallowed on the ground that the relationship of cousins is too distant. The second reason on which the document has been disallowed is that the petitioner had not placed on record the documents which his cousin had produced before the committee for obtaining the validity certificate. 4 While dealing with the affinity test, the committee has observed that it is always possible that when one brother from Rajput Bhamta community survives on robberies, theft, dacoity etc. the other brother would not necessarily belong to this community if he does not engage in these activities. According to the committee, if the other brother indulges in other activities for his livelihood including agriculture etc. he cannot be termed as a Rajput Bhamta. 5 In our opinion, this reasoning of the committee is absolutely wp3137.11 -3- perverse. Merely because a person does not continue to engage in the occupation, which the Rajput Bhamta community did indulge in, in the past, it would not mean that he does not belong to that community. A person from that community could have improved his lot and may refuse to indulge in such activities like robberies, theft, dacoity etc. which were the original occupations of means of livelihood of the Rajput Bhamta community. Education or other surrounding circumstances could ensure that a person and his family forsake such dread activities. However, this cannot lead to the inference that the person does not belong to the Rajput Bhamta community. 6 In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the committee to decide the petitioner's claim afresh. The petitioner shall appear before the committee on 1.8.2011 at 11.00 a.m. The committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within six months from that date. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. ( M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) rlj/