JUDGMENT :

G.A. Sanap, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30th November, 2007 passed by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.2 confirmed the order dated 3rd September, 2016 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the application made by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate of her caste to her son.

2. The petitioner adopted her son Heramb. The petitioner had filed Misc. Petition No.168 of 2009 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai seeking permission for adoption of male child from Children of the World India Trust, Arun Chambers, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034. Before adopting the male child from the Trust/Orphanage, he was known as “Pappu”. Identity of his biological parents was not known. At the time of the adoption, he was five years old. It is stated that in terms of the directions issued by the City Civil Court, Mumbai on 24th December, 2009, the petitioner applied for registration of birth in the record of the Municipal Corporation. It was recorded on 13th January, 2010. Birth certificate dated 19th January, 2010 came to be issued.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is mother of Heramb, adoptive son. Her caste is “Hindu Mahyavanshi” recognized as a scheduled caste. This caste is recorded in all the documents of her son Heramb. The petitioner applied for issuance of caste certificate to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 3rd September, 2016 rejected the said application on the ground that documents of the caste of father of Heramb were not submitted and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get a caste certificate. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, challenged the same before respondent No.2 – District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai City. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30th November, 2017 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by respondent No.1.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a single mother. On adoption, her son Heramb would take her caste. Since, he is adopted from orphanage, there was no question of providing details of his biological parents. The same are not known even to the orphanage and ultimately to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, her son Heramb is entitled to take her caste. Order rejecting her application for issuance of caste certificate by respondent No.1 and the confirmation of the said order by respondent No.2 is illegal.

5. Nayab Tehsildar has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 and opposed the claim. It is contended that the petitioner had not submitted permanent residence proof of father/ grandfather/great grandfather of Heramb prior to the deem date namely 10th August, 1950. The petitioner had not submitted caste proof of father/grandfather/great grandfather/cousin grandfather of child Heramb prior to the deem date i.e. prior to 10th August, 1950. These requirements are mandatory. Since the proof of caste from parental side was not placed on record, the claim was rejected.

6. We have heard Mr. Havnur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bhende, learned A.G.P, for Respondent-State. Perused the record and proceeding.

7. Mr. Havnur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.1 and confirmed by respondent No.2 in the facts situation reflects sheer non application of mind. Learned Counsel submitted that all the documents including the order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai granting permission for adoption from the orphanage were placed on record. Learned Counsel submitted that since the petitioner is the single mother, the adopted child was entitled to take her caste. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the reasons recorded for rejection of the application for issuance of caste certificate by the petitioner are not at all sustainable. In order to substantiate his submission that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the child is entitled to take caste of the mother, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in