1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4098/2006 Prakash Prabhakar Parate -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 21, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Shri Parihar, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,3 and4 and Shri Sambre with Shri Kalmegh, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Challenge is to order of Caste Scrutiny Committee (respondent no.2) dated 26.06.2006 invalidating the caste claim of petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Amongst other challenges, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel has contended that the 2 vigilance inquiry, as conducted was biased and all documents submitted by petitioner have not been looked into. He contends that the family tree placed on record and proved, has not been appropriately dealtwith. According to him, the relationship of petitioner with one Ragho Bhavni (Halbi) Parate is established and 1912 document of birth extract shows that a child is born to said Ragho Bhavni. This being the oldest document in which the caste is recorded as Halbi, according to the learned Counsel this document needed consideration. Reliance upon documents later in point of time, particularly of the year 1951-52 which record caste as Koshti is, therefore, not justified. He contends that as Research Officer was not associated with vigilance officer, this has happened. He points out that ground specifically raised in this respect in writ petition has not been traversed. Shri Sambre, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 places reliance upon the vigilance cell report on record to show that one Tayade, Research Officer has placed his endorsement on report of the vigilance cell and it shows that he was very much 3 associated with the investigation. He contends that document of 1944 and 1948 recording the caste as Koshti have been looked into and accepted and therefore, there is no question of looking into any other document. Shri Parihar, learned A.G.P. is also supporting the impugned order. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1996 SC 1338 (Gayatrilaxmi B. Nagpure .vrs. State of Maharashtra), the documents placed on record by petitioner, needed consideration. At least the oldest document of 1912 deserved appreciation. Here perusal of document dated 06.05.1912 shows birth of a male child to great grand father of petitioner by name Ragho. There is nothing on record to show that the Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of relationship with Ragho or then birth of male child to Ragho. However, the said document does not find proper mention or then consideration, in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. 4 Perusal of the vigilance cell committee report shows that the police inspector conducting that inquiry has remained satisfied after finding some documents in which caste was recorded as Koshti. No further efforts have been made to find out the correctness or otherwise of the certificate dated 06.05.1912. The documents disclosing petitioners caste as Kosthi have been looked into in the vigilance cell report and these entries are found to be of 17.10.1944 and 04.12.1948. One entry dated 20.07.1927 mentioning caste as Halbi of one Vithal and another dated 23.07.1958 of Ramesh son of Vitthal, which again mentions Halbi also appear in it. Why these entries have not been accepted and why entries showing caste Koshti have been relied upon, is not clear. It is thus, clear that finding of subsequent entries inconsistent as against old one may require further consideration. This is more so, in the light of above mentioned 1912, 1927 and 1958 entries which shows the caste as Halbi. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, as we find that the Scrutiny Committee has not applied its mind properly and its approach is 5 not proper, we quash and set aside the orders impugned. Needless to mention that other challenges raised in the matter are kept open for consideration at appropriate juncture, if occasion therefor arises. Petition is thus allowed and petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee on 12.10.2011 and abide by its further instructions in the matter. Respondent no.2 to attempt to adjudicate upon the caste claim of petitioner by obtaining a fresh Police Vigilance Cell report in accordance with law as also Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001), as early as possible and in any case within a further period of four months. Rule is thus, made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd