1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4140 OF 2006 Pruthiviraj Shankarlal Gupta .vs. The State of Mah. & others ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, A.G.P. for respondents nos. 1 & 3. Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: K. J. ROHEE & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2008. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to 'Pardeshi Bhamta' (Vimukta Jati). He had applied to respondent no.3 for issuance of caste certificate. Along-with the application, he had annexed certain documents to substantiate his caste claim. However, by order dated 3.10.2003 respondent no.3 rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that since document nos. 1 to 3 are recent documents, they cannot be considered. Document Nos. 4 & 5 are of the year 18.10.1935 and 1908-09 respectively, but in those documents there is no reference to the caste as 'Pardeshi Bhamta'. Document no.6 is School Leaving Certificate of the father of the petitioner. In that connection, respondent no.3 called for the Admission Register from the school and examined entry no.2140 against the name of the father of the petitioner. It revealed that in the column of caste the word 'Pardeshi' was written in black ink and the word 'Bhamta' was written in blue ink. Respondent no.3 also found that the word 'Bhamta' was subsequently added. On this 2 ground, respondent no.3 rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before respondent no.2. However, respondent no.2 refused to entertain the appeal. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3964/05. By order dated 25.1.2006 this Court quashed the order of respondent no.2 and directed it to admit the appeal and dispose of the same on merits by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent no.2 afforded opportunity and decided the matter by order dated 26.5.2006 upholding the decision of respondent no.3. The orders passed by respondent nos. 2 & 3 are challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 3. It was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3 did not follow the procedure prescribed for enquiry into the caste claim of the petitioner and erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by observing about document no.6 that word 'Bhamta' was added subsequently as it was in different ink. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.3 should have issued caste certificate to the petitioner because it operates only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by Caste Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jati) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000. It was also urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case the caste claim of the petitioner is rejected in such fashion, then sub-section (2) would be rendered redundant and hence, it is necessary to admit the petition. 4. We are unable to appreciate this submission. It may be seen that sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act provides that the Competent 3 Authority after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim, may issue caste certificate or it may reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, respondent no.3 which is the Competent Authority rejected the application of the petitioner by giving cogent reason. The said decision was upheld by the lower Appellate Authority. In this situation, there is no question of verification of the caste certificate and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Since the Competent Authority is empowered to reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing, there is no question of sub-section (2) being rendered nugatory or redundant as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the burden of proving the caste claim lies on the claimant/applicant under Section 8 of the said Act and under Section 9 of the said Act the Competent Authority is clothed with the powers of Civil Court. He submitted that when the Competent Authority found that the School Leaving Certificate is suspicious, the Competent Authority should have given opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in this respect. We are also unable to find force in this submission because the powers of Civil Court which have been given to the Competent Authority under Section 9 include requisitioning any public record from any office and that has been exactly done by respondent no.3 by calling the Admission Register from the school and examining it himself. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 6. In view of these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.