AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT : (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
. Heard Ms. Khushi Raju Kadu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Vinod A. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader who appears for all the respondents.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2 - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner towards “Mathura Labhan” caste.
The caste “Mathura Labhan” is recognized as Vimukta Jati (A) at Serial No.7(F) under the Government Resolution dated 21.11.1961. Thus, the cut-off date for submitting documents substantiating the caste claim of “Mathura Labhan” is 21.11.1961. Ms. Khushi Raju Kadu, learned counsel, has invited our attention to the document dated 23.12.2024, which is a copy of the Kotwal Book extract issued by the Tahsildar, Digras, at Mouza Singad, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal, wherein a son, namely Sakru, was born to the petitioner’s paternal grandfather (Ramlal Kasna), and his caste is recorded as “Mathura Labhan” on 18.06.1943. Thus, the aforesaid document records the entry of “Mathura Labhan” in a document pertaining to a paternal relative of the petitioner, much prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 21.11.1961. Ms. Khushi Kadu, learned counsel, also relied upon the certificate of validity issued by respondent No.2 - Committee to Pandit Sakru Chandel, the father of the petitioner, on 23.04.1992, which is at record page No.45 (Annexure - K). Similarly, the petitioner relied upon another certificate of validity dated 18.03.2021, issued by respondent No.2-Committee in favour of Shri. Abhishek Pandit Chandel, the real brother of the petitioner, a copy of which is at record page No.46 (Annexure - L). The family tree of the petitioner is at record page No.49, which is reproduced as under :
The relationship of the petitioner with the aforesaid individuals, pertaining to whom the petitioner had relied upon for substantiating her caste claim, is not disputed by respondent No.2 -Committee. Shri. Vinod Thakare, learned Asst. G.P., who appears on behalf of respondent No.2 - Committee, relied upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of the reply filed by respondent No.2 - Committee on 08.06.2026, which read thus:
“6.It is submitted that the Kotwal book copy dated 23/12/2024 issued by the Tahsildar Digras dated 18/06/1943 at Mouje village Singad. Tal- Digras, stating that son namely Sakru was born to the petitioner’s paternal grandfather (Ramlal Kasna) Mathura Labhan. When the respondent inspected said kotwal book copy, it was observed that the Petitioner has not submitted any evidence to establish school and revenue relationship of the name of grandfather Sakru Ramlal, therefore the committee is not satisfied that the Kotwal book copy submitted in the name of Ramlal Kasna belongs to the same Family as the petitioner also to verify said kotwal book copy. The committee sent the copy of kotwal book No.2851 dated 24/07/2025, Tahsildar, Tahsil office Digras, District was informed to appear before the respondent no. 2 along with original record of the kotwal book showing name of Ramlal Kasna Mathura Labhan dated 09/09/2025. Accordingly, on 10/11/2025 Shriram Surakant Amte Revenue Sevak - Tahsil office Digras, Dist. Yavatmal appeared before the committee along with original record. When the Committee verified the original record, it was seen that on Page no. 22 entry viz Ramlal Kasna Mathura Labhan dated 18/06/1943 was made with different ink and there was difference in the letters from the other entries other page. Therefore, the said evidence is before the date of valid date and is not reliable. The kotwal book nakkal is annexed with the petition as annexure R-1.
7.It is submitted that the Respondent no. 2 denied the validity certificate issued to the father of the petitioner. The original record of kotwal book of great-grandfather is verified, wherein it shows Mathura Labhan is written with different ink in letters from the other entries of the said. Therefore, the validity issued to the petitioner's father is not considered by the Respondent no. 2.”
Thus, respondent No.2 - Committee has rejected not only the old document dated 18.06.1943 but also the validity certificates issued in favour of the father and real brother of the petitioner, solely on the ground that the entry at page No.22 pertaining to Ramlal Kasna Mathura Labhan, dated 28.06.1943, was made in different ink and there was a difference in the letters from the other entries on the other page. Thus, the aforesaid document was doubted by respondent No.2 - Committee on the ground of interpolation. The aforesaid issue regarding interpolation is no more res integra, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sayana .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009 (10) SCC 268, has specifically held thus:
“9.The report dated December 1, 2003, forwarded by the Police Inspector, Vigilance Cell, nowhere mentions that the certificate dated May 17, 1972, produced by the appellant to establish that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe is forged one. The contents of the certificate dated May 17, 1972 show that the said certificate was issued on the basis of the certificate issued by the President of Kundalwadi Municipality. The report dated December 1, 2003 of Police Inspector does not indicate whether the Police Inspector had recorded the statement of the President of the Municipality to find out whether the certificate issued by the President was genuine or not. What is relevant to notice is that in the report dated December 1, 2003 the Police Inspector has merely stated as a matter of fact that the word "lu" was subsequently added while recording the caste of the appellant as Mannerwarlu in the school register. The Police Inspector has not stated that the word "lu" was not interpolated by the appellant. There is every possibility that the word “lu” was not mentioned at the time of recording of the caste of the appellant and on being pointed out the correct spelling of caste, the word "lu" was added. Addition of word "lu" subsequently would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the said word was added by the appellant or at his behest. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the word "lu" was interpolated in the register of the school more particularly when it was not so opined by the Police Inspector who had conducted the enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert or by comparison of admitted letters of a person with this disputed one. It is an admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had never attempted to get an expert's opinion nor itself had compared the disputed letters with admitted one of the appellant. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the word "lu" was interpolated will have to be regarded as not based on any credible evidence. The Police Inspector had never taken care to find out whether the word "lu" was subsequently added by the school authorities or by the appellant. It was necessary for the said officer to undertake such an exercise in view of the specific defence of the appellant that the school record was lying with the school authorities and he had no opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same.”
In this case also, the respondent No.2 - Committee has not sought the opinion of a handwriting expert as to the difference in handwriting or ink. Respondent No.2 - Committee has also not recorded that they have compared the disputed entries with the admitted ones of the petitioner. Thus, we find no reason for not adopting the same view as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in holding that the findings of respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee regarding interpolation were not based on any credible evidence. If the Scrutiny Committee had any doubt as to the genuineness of the aforesaid document relied upon by the petitioner, and if any interpolation was doubted, then the Committee should have sought the expert opinion to confirm the doubt. Merely observing that the relatives of the petitioner had unauthorisedly interpolated or made changes in the official record is insufficient. More specifically, in view of the fact that the custodian of the aforesaid official records was the Tahsildar, Digras, and thus, the relatives of the petitioner had no opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same. Apart from the aforesaid old entries pertaining to the year 1943 and the validity certificates granted to the paternal relatives of the petitioner, respondent No.2 - Committee also ignored the Vigilance Cell report, which was in favour of the petitioner. The Vigilance Cell has recorded the statements of the residents of Village Singad, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal, who substantiated the fact that the petitioner’s family were ordinary residents of the aforesaid Village Singad. The Vigilance Cell also gave a positive finding pertaining to the affinity test, which was duly proved by the petitioner and her relatives.
In our considered opinion, respondent No.2 - Committee was not at all justified in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner, more specifically in the teeth of the certificate of validities granted by the same Committee in favour of the father and brother of the petitioner. The aforesaid validity certificates were granted on 23.04.1992 and 18.03.2021, respectively, and even after the passage of these many years, respondent No.2 - Committee has neither cancelled the aforesaid validity certificates nor initiated any proceedings for cancelling the same on the ground of fraud.
In view of the above, the reasons given by respondent No.2 - Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner are unsustainable in the eyes of law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. On the contrary, the case of the present petitioner is covered by the law settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale .vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein this Court has specifically held that the caste validity certificates granted in favour of the paternal relatives of the petitioner cannot be sidelined without substantial reason, more specifically pertaining to the fraud or misrepresentaiton is there.
In the present case, there is no such valid ground as raised by respondent No.2 - Committee, and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the respondent No.2 - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner towards “Mathura Labhan” Vimukta Jati (A) is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to the caste “Mathura Labhan” which is recognized as Vimukta Jati (A) at Serial No,7 (F) under the Government Resolution dated 21.11.1961.
iv) The respondent No.2 - Committee is directed to issue the caste validity certificate towards the caste “Mathura Labhan” in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the order of this Court.
In the meanwhile, this judgment and order shall be treated as a certificate of validity for all the practical purposes in favour of the petitioner, till the certificate of validity is issued by the respondent No.2 - Committee.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs