ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition
1
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge by petitioner is to order of Scrutiny Committee dated 11.06.2012 invalidating his caste claim as belonging to Gadi Lohar community which is recognized as N.T.-B in State of Maharashtra. It is also not in dispute that earlier Lohar caste was placed in O.B.C. category by State of Maharashtra and with effect from 01.03.2006, it has been treated as N.T.-B.
3. Shri Saboo for the petitioner points out that real sister of the petitioner Ku.Tara Keshavrao Mesekar has been given validity and that validity has not been appropriately looked into. He has also invited attention to the old document i.e. document pertaining to the year 1950 where a son is shown to have been born to Vitthalrao on 05.02.1950. Attention is also invited to birth form A 1 V.S. to show that there the caste of said Vitthalrao was recorded as Gadi Lohar. Still older document of October, 1920 where a son is shown to have been born on 06.10.1920 to one Dasrath Kisanji is also pressed into service. He states that there the caste has been recorded as Lohar. Government Resolution dated 23.06.2008 is pressed into service to point out that the State Government has
2
accepted Lohar to be main nomadic tribe with Gadi Lohar, Ghisadi Lohar as sub castes within it.
4. On the strength of this material, learned counsel states that alleged interpolation as recorded by Scrutiny Committee is inconsequential. He points out that Vigilance Cell Authorities have not recorded any finding of interpolation or erasure.
5. Learned AGP appearing for the respondents no.1 and 3 is opposing the petition. He invitees attention to the consideration of all these documents by Scrutiny Committee. According to him caste Gadi Lohar has been written in different ink and is found to be an interpolation. He further argues that petitioner nowhere claims to be belonging to Lohar caste and as Gadi Lohar claim it not substantiated, invalidation cannot be faulted with. Insofar as validity given to real sister is concerned, he submits that while giving that validity, complete procedure for verification was not followed.
6. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the parties, we find that the oldest document available on record is of October, 1920 and it shows that a son was born to one Dasrath Kisanji on 06.10.1920. Caste recorded therein is Lohar. Government itself has accepted that Gadi Lohar is sub caste of
3
Lohar. The Scrutiny Committee has not looked into this oldest document and has not disbelieved it. If said document is genuine, interpolation in document in which a son is shown to have been born to one Vitthalrao on 05.02.1950, by itself, may not decisive. To support caste of Vitthalrao, there is one more document and that birth extract also shows his caste to be Gadi Lohar.
7. The validity given to real sister of the petitioner is on 26.08.2010. It is, therefore, obviously after coming into force of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept that said validity was given without following the procedure as prescribed in said Act. The Committee has not recorded proper reasons for discarding that validity.
8. In this situation, we find that the matter needs to be sent back to the Scrutiny Committee for looking into the oldest document and also for considering the impact of the Government Resolution dated 23.06.2008. The record of case in which validity has been given to sister of petitioner can also
4
be perused by the Scrutiny Committee.
9. For said purpose, impugned order dated 11.06.2012 is quashed and set aside and matter is placed back before respondent no.1 Committee for its fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to appear before that Committee on 20.05.2013 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Committee is directed to complete the procedure of verification as early as possible and in any case within further period of six months thereafter. The interim order granted by this Court on 13.07.2012 to continue and shall be subject to outcome of such verification.
10. Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
HALWAI
5