- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
VINAYAK BUDHAYA KANTHALE Vs THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
wp5823.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5823 OF 2012
Vinayak s/o Budhaya Knathale age 48 years,
occ. nil
r/o Hadgaon, Tq. Hadgaon Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The District Level Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Caste Claim Nanded
Collectorate, Nanded
Through its Member Secretary .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State. =====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
U. D. SALVI, JJ.
DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
1
2
3. Petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Mala Jangam' caste which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner secured caste certificate from the office of the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Hadgaon on 10-7-1995 certifying therein that he belongs to Mala Jangam, Scheduled Caste. Petitioner was desirous of contesting elections to Municipal Council, Hadgaon and as such tendered application to the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nanded for verification of his caste claim. The District Committee, on scrutiny of the proposal found that there are certain deficiencies in the proposal and as such returned back papers to the petitioner alongwith covering letter dated 29-11-2011. Petitioner contends that he had complied with the deficiencies but the Committee has erroneously returned the proposal.
4. Learned AGP for the State has pointed out that rules in respect of constitution of committee have been framed by the State Government and, in accordance with Rule 11 of the said rules, the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee is constituted and is entrusted with the function of verification of caste claim. Petitioner shall have to move the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste claim.
5. The issue raised in the matter is no more a res integra and is covered by
3
the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11770/2010 decided on 21.02.2012. The Division Bench, dealing with the identical situation, has observed in paragraph no. 4 of the judgment as follows :
"4. Caste of a person determines his social status. The person who claims to belongs to scheduled caste or Other Backward Class is entitled for his caste claim to be determined and verified in accordance with law irrespective of the immediate motive for the verification. A person, who claims to belong to scheduled caste or other backward class, is entitled to certain benefits even other than being elected to a reserved post at an election. In our view, the scrutiny committee cannot refuse to decide the Caste claim merely on the ground that the election to an elective post, is over. This is because, the petitioner may be entitled to use that certificate to claim other benefits also."
6. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it would be open for the petitioner to tender proposal to the aforesaid committee alongwith necessary documents. If petitioner proceeds to tender proposal complete in all respects, within a period of eight weeks from today, we direct the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of eight months thereafter. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
4
7. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.
( U. D. SALVI ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Alert