The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict adherence to the procedure stipulated in Rule 17 of the 2012 Rules for the verification of caste claims, and the consequences of failure to comply with the legal provisions.

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

We have heard learned respective Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.Ps., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Though in few matters, Gram Panchayat concerned has been added as respondent no. 4/5, either it is still not served or then though served there is no appearance for it. It is not a necessary party to the present petitions.

2. Considering the nature of controversy and short point involved, which at this stage arises for consideration, with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the matters for final hearing. Rule accordingly issued is made returnable forthwith.

3. It is not in dispute that in all these matters, caste claims need to be verified by adopting the procedure stipulated in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificates Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2012 Rules” for short).

4. Though in some Writ Petitions, there are individual contentions and various grounds have been urged before us, common ground in all these matters is about violation of procedure stipulated in Rule 17 of the 2012 Rules. Petitioners have relied upon Division Bench judgments reported in 2016 [3] All MR 717 (Lawrence Salvador D'Souza vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others) and 2015 [5] All MR 563 (Sapremsing Madhavrao Patil vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), to buttress their submissions. They contend that petitioners were not served with copy of Vigilance Cell Report and none of them has received notice in Form No. 25.

5. Learned A.G.Ps., appearing on behalf of respondent State, are relying upon the impugned orders to urge that petitioners were called for hearing and documents available were shown to them. Submission is, thus, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, fairly the decision has been taken. They also submit that there no malafides urged against any Member or the Committee by any of the petitioners.

6. Perusal of the procedure stipulated in Rule 17, shows that as per Sub-rule [6], if after receipt of claim, along with an affidavit, the Committee is satisfied with the genuineness thereof, it has to forthwith issue validity certificate in Form No.20, without any inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. Sub-rule [7], applies when the Scrutiny Committee is not so satisfied. In that event, the caste claim is to be referred to Vigilance Cell for carrying out suitable enquiry as deemed fit. The proviso to Sub-rule [7], mandates that findings recorded by the Vigilance Cell is not binding on the Scrutiny Committee at all and the Vigilance inquiry is a sort of internal assistance extended to the Scrutiny Committee in adjudication of the caste claim. Sub-rule [10], then enables the Committee to issue validity certificate in Form No.24, if it is satisfied with the genuineness of the claim, after receipt of the Vigilance Cell report. When it is not so satisfied, it has to proceed further as stipulated in Sub-rule [11]. Sub-rule [11][i], lays down that the Committee has to call upon claimant to discharge the burden cast upon it by 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 Certificates Act, 2000. (Maharashtra Act No. 23 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as “Act No. 23 of 2001” for short). This is to be done by issuing notice in Form No. 25. Form no. 25 in turn is important, because the Committee in that Form is required to record its findings on caste claim. Thus, with the findings of the Committee after receipt of Vigilance Cell, when a notice goes to claimant, due to adverse findings of the Committee, the claimant is informed why the Committee is not satisfied with his caste claim, and thereafter, burden shifts to him under Section 8 of the Act No