AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: M. S. KARNIK, J.)
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this Petition is to the order passed by Respondent No. 2–District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee, Satara, rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner, who asserts that he belongs to the Kasai caste, which is notiied as an Other Backward Class.
We have perused the impugned order dated 8th May 2019, passed by Respondent No. 2 which appears at page 16 of the paper book. The indings recorded in the impugned order indicate that Respondent No. 2 committed an error in observing that the Petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence prior to 13th October 1967 to establish his caste as Kasai.
We have also perused the Vigilance Cell Report dated 18th May 2018, appearing at page 53 of the paper book. The Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry and recorded certain indings concerning the relatives of the Petitioner, which indicate that they belong to the Kasai community.
The Scrutiny Committee primarily rejected the caste claim on the ground that the Petitioner had not furnished any evidence to establish that he belongs to the Kasai community prior to 13th October 1967.
Learned AGP argued in support of the impugned order.
Heard. At the outset it is necessary to note that this Court, in the case of Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed vs. Divisional Caste Certiicate in Civil Writ Petition No. 10577 of 2013 by an order dated 21st February 2014, upon considering sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notiied Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Veriication of) Caste Certiicate Rules, 2012 (for short, “the said Rules”), has observed as under:
“6 In the present case, the petitioner is claiming to be belonging to caste Mujawar. Our attention is invited the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notiied Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Veriication of) Caste Certiicate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to ‘as the said Rules'). Rule 12 provided for the constitution of Vigilance Cell. Rule 13 deals with contents of the report upon investigation made by the Vigilance Cell. (1) of Rule 13 reads thus:
“13 Report of Vigilance Cell and Issues to be dealt with-(1) Vigilance Cell Oicer(s) shall submit report upon investigating into the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notiied Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category claim referred to it-
(a)by visiting permanent place of residence and conducting domestic inquiry, or
(b)by recording statements of respected and responsible persons from concerned area, including representatives of Local Self Government, Police, Patil, etc; or
(c)by collecting information, as part of recording statement, as regards to name, age, educational qualiication, occupation, existing place of residence and information regarding properties (existing and disposed) of family members of applicant or claimant; or
(d)by collecting information including the sociological, anthropological and ethnological (anthropological moorings and ethnological kinship), genetical traits of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notiied Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category, if any,; or
e)by personally visiting Oice of the Competent Authority or revenue or school or other concerned oices."
In the present case, the Vigilance Cell report is on record. Clause (d) of sub Rule 1 of Rule 13 provides that the Vigilance Cell should collect information including sociological, anthropological, ethnological and genetical traits of the relevant Caste. In the present case, this exercise was necessary as we have already observed earlier that there is no likelihood of any entry of caste recorded in old record the case of Mohameddans. It was necessary for the Vigilance Cell to make an enquiry in terms of clause (d). An enquiry should have been made to ascertain the traditional occupation of the Mujawars. We have perused the Vigilance Cell report. We ind that no such exercise has been made. Perusal of the impugned order shows that even the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not applied the ainity test. Therefore, we ind that the entire approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is erroneous as in the facts of the case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee should have directed the Vigilance Cell to do the exercise under the provisions of Clause (d) of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 13 the said Rules. The Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have held the appropriate enquiry in the present case. Earlier, the petitioner had obtained caste certiicate of the caste Shikalgar. A caste certiicate is not conclusive evidence of that any caste. It is not the case made out that any adjudication was made on the basis of the said certiicate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, the enquiry as contemplated by the rules has not been held. Only on the basis of the impugned order, the Petitioner was elected Councillor of Municipal Corporation has been unseated. Now, the notiication dated 15th February 2014 issued by the irst respondent State Election Commission records that the election will be held to ill in the vacancy caused by the petitioner. The election programme is to start from 25th February 2014 and the election is scheduled to be held on 23rd March 2014. If the petitioner succeeds after the order of remand, the order unseating the petitioner any will not survive and therefore to avoid any, complications, it will be necessary for the State Election Commission to postpone the election for illing up the vacancy caused by the petitioner.
7 Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make adjudication within a time bound schedule.”
In the aforementioned case, this Court has observed that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not applied the parameters laid down, and therefore this Court found the entire approval granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to be unsustainable. It was observed that this aspect may be taken into consideration by Respondent No. 2 while deciding the matter afresh.
In this view of the matter, we are also of the opinion that an appropriate inquiry, as envisaged in the decision of Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed vs. Divisional Caste Certiicate (supra), has not been conducted. Such an inquiry was, in our view, necessary in the present case.
Hence, we pass following order:
::ORDER::
a] Impugned order dated 8th May 2019, is hereby quashed and set aside.
b] The matter relating to the caste claim is remanded to the Respondent No. 2–District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee, Satara. The parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 15th December 2025 at 11:00 a.m.
c] The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall call for a Vigilance Cell Report in terms of Rule 13, and in particular clause (d), of the said Rules.
d] The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, and preferably on or before 30th March 2026.
e] All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Writ Petition stands disposed of.