1 WP-3737-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3737 of 2017 [Ku. Seema D/o Bhabutsingh Tawar (Sau. Seema Dharmendrasingh Rajput) VERSUS District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, through its Member-Secretary and another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders. Shri S.R. Narnaware, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri A.S. Deshpande, Counsel for Respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , JJ . D ATE : JANUARY 07, 2025 P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. Vide order impugned dated June 06, 2017 passed by the respondent No.1-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, the caste claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ Vimukta Jati (A) came to be invalidated. 3. The invalidation is based on two grounds, viz. – (a) that the record in relation to the validities issued in favour of Jaya Tawar and Vishal Singh Tawar, the real sister and brother of the petitioner, is not traceable, and (b) that the petitioner has failed to place on record the documents prior to 1961 so as to substantiate his claim for issuance of validity. 4. The contention of Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the validities issued in favour of Jaya Tawar and Vishal Singh Tawar are neither cancelled nor any proceedings are taken out. According to him, non-traceable record in relation to the said validities cannot be attributed to the petitioner so as to reject his claim for issuance of validity. Drawing support from Rule 16, Explanation (3) of the 2025:BHC-NAG:201-DB 2 WP-3737-2017.odt Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2012’), the learned counsel would claim that once the validities are granted in favour of the blood relations, unless such validities are cancelled, the petitioner is entitled for similar relief of issuance of validity. 5. In addition to above, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, another aspect as regards to the availability of evidence to support the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into for the reason of validities already being issued in favour of Jaya Tawar and Vishal Singh Tawar, the real sister and brother of the petitioner. 6. As against above, Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-Committee, would urge that Section 8 of the 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 contemplates the burden to be discharged by the petitioner, which he has failed to do so, as even if he has produced the validity, the documents are not produced to substantiate his claim. According to Shri Ghodeswar, the order is reasoned one and that being so, unless the reasons are demolished, the order impugned cannot be set aside or faulted with. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. The record depicts that Jaya Tawar and Vishal Singh Tawar, the real sister and brother of the petitioner, were issued validities of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ Vimukta Jati (A) on April 23, 2002 and September 25, 2001 respectively by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 3 WP-3737-2017.odt 9. Merely because the said Committee at Nagpur has failed to trace the record in relation to the blood relations of the petitioner, viz. the real sister and brother, that by itself would not act as an embargo to claim the validity, as the non-availability of the record in regard to issuance of validities in favour of the real sister and brother cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is the failure of the respective Committee to trace the record. Even otherwise, the order impugned does not reflect that such validities were never issued by the respondent-Committee or any steps are being taken by the respondent-Committee to cancel such validities or the respondent-Committee has directed any enquiry. As such, the validities issued in favour of the real sister and brother of the petitioner still hold the field and in such an eventuality, the provisions of Section 16, Explanation (3) of the Rules of 2012 shall be attracted. In such an eventuality, the reasons cited by the respondent-Committee that the original record in relation to the validities issued in favour of the real sister and brother of the petitioner is not available and as such the validity cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner for want of verification of the validities in favour of the blood relations, cannot be accepted. Such finding of the respondent-Committee goes contrary to Rule 16, Explanation (3) of the Rules of 2012. 10. Once the blood relation holds the validity, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Apporva D/o Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in (2010) 6 Mah LJ 401, is required to be applied to the facts of the case in hand. 11. Apart from above, since the validities issued in favour of the real sister and brother of the petitioner are not faulted with or no enquiry is being caused on the said issue, there is no need to go into another aspect of the matter as regards to the availability of the evidence to support the 4 WP-3737-2017.odt claim of the petitioner unless adverse material is available on record to discard such claim. 12. That being so, the order impugned dated June 06, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is declared as belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ Vimukta Jati (A) at par with the validities issued to his real sister and brother, viz. Jaya Tawar and Vishal Singh Tawar. In case, upon enquiry, it is noticed that the validities issued in favour of real sister and brother of the petitioner are forged or illegal, it shall be open for the respondent-Committee to proceed against the petitioner also for cancellation of the validity. Let the validity be issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 13. The petition stands allowed. No costs. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) LANJEWAR