D. D. SINHA, J. : - Heard Shri. Gastgar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Khade, learned counsel for Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The writ petition is directed against order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 18 - 04 - 2006, whereby caste claim of the petitioner, as belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati), came to be invalidated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case, on earlier occasion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued validity certificate in respect of the real brother of the petitioner viz. Girish dated 22 - 12 - 2004, whereby it is declared that he belonged to Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). Similarly, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has also vide order dated 24th June, 2005 declared that the real sisters of the petitioner viz. Anjali and Manjushree belonged to Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). It is contended that all these validity certificates were placed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, the Caste Scrutiny Committee without taking into consideration these validity certificates, issued by the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner only on the basis of the documents i.e. Kotwal Book extract, pertaining to grandfather of the petitioner i.e Shyamrao as well as father of the petitioner i.e. Dnyandeo. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24/25th June, 2004 rendered in Writ Petition No.1372 of 1989 it is observed which reads thus:

"Having regard to the various decisions referred to hereinabove and the law laid down therein we are of the view that an order passed in favour of a near blood relation by competent authority which has attained finality, cannot be brushed aside lightly. The same will have to be considered as a weighty piece of evidence. Such an adjudication prior in point of time which has attained finality would bind subsequent authorities while adjudicating the claims of near blood relations. Such an earlier adjudication could lose its evidentiary value if the same is shown to have been tainted with fraud or misrepresentation. In view of these discussion we are of the view that the judgment in Dharamdas in 2004(1) ALL MR 512 does not lay down correct law."

The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that in view of the above referred observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, it was incumbent on the part of Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the validity certificates issued by the competent Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of real brother and· sister of the petitioner and the committee could not have brushed aside this evidence, merely on the basis of passing observations made by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Apex Court in its judgment, in the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2004)2 SCC 56 in paragraph 12 observed thus:

"The use of the expression "substantial compliance" was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and it was unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case. A line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observations."

3. It is further contended that passing remark of the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of Madhuri Patil's case, that each case must be considered by the Committee in the backdrop of its own facts, by itself cannot be said to be ratio decidendi of the judgment and in absence thereof declaration of validity given in favour of brother and sisters of the petitioner by the earlier orders of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by necessary implications are binding on the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Committe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document