1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4566 OF 2006 (Kishor Shyamlal Bhandopia vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committe, Nagpur & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 27, 2009. Heard Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tariq M. Zaheer, Advocate holding for Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mirza, learned AGP for respondent No.2. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel argues that the petitioner supplied old documents which reveal the caste recorded as “Thakur”. He states that caste of the petitioner’s uncle Ramlal was mentioned as “Thakur” in his service book in 1948. He further states that the caste of father’s uncle Bhaiyalal is recorded as “Thakur” in Primary Teacher Certificates issued for the year 1949-50 to 1950-51. According to him, in view of these documents, the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not have merely because in one place it found the caste of one uncle recorded as “Rangari”, invalidated caste claim. He states that though affinity has been applied, because of the documents in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner did not lead complete evidence and he also 2 states that the petitioner should be given fresh opportunity for the said purpose. The learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee and learned AGP for the respective respondents oppose the prayers. The learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee has pointed out that the Vigilance Cell authorities have found that the caste of uncle Gajanan, uncle Ramlal, great grand father Munna was recorded as Rangari. He states that this was as per admission register of the Schools in which they have taken admission. He further states that even in Gram Panchayat register for the years 1953-54 and 1951-53, caste of Ramlal is found to be recorded as Rangari twice. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly invalidated. After receipt of Police Vigilance Cell report, the petitioner has submitted a reply pointing out that when caste of his relatives/ uncles was earlier recorded as Thakur, mentioning of caste as Rangari in subsequent years was irrelevant. He further stated that because of work of painting being done by the family to earn their livelihood, perhaps the occupation has been mentioned as caste. During arguments, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel stated that this explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been even looked into by the Scrutiny Committee. The perusal of the order of Scrutiny 3 Committee shows that the Scrutiny Committee nowhere specifically mentions that a caste by name “Rangari” existed at the relevant time and uncle or great grand father of the petitioner belonged to that caste. The explanation furnished by the petitioner has not been looked into at all. Only because a document showing “Rangari” as caste has been discovered by the Police Vigilance Cell, the documents in favour of the petitioner have been discarded. The impugned order is dated 14.6.2006, when the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Ravi Prakash Parmar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 177 was holding the field. That view has been upset in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar, reported at 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250. In view of these developments, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel has requested that an opportunity to lead positive evidence to show affinity may be granted. Considering this position, we are inclined to give such an opportunity to the petitioner and for that purpose, we quash and set aside the order dated 14.6.2006. The matter is restored back to the file of Respondent No.1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 31st May 2010. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 30th September 2009. and shall 4 abide by its orders in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.