The legal principle established is that a person reared in an atmosphere and with customs, traditions, and practices prevailing in a household inhabited by a particular caste is entitled to stake a claim as belonging to that caste, as per the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

JUDGMENT

Anil L. Pansare, J. - Heard Mr. Sudame, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner No.1 is son and Petitioner No.2 is mother. The Petitioner No.1's caste claim as belonging to 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste has been invalidated by the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee mainly on the ground that the Petitioner No.1 has not submitted the documentary evidence from the paternal side relatives, but has submitted and based his caste claim on the basis of documents of the maternal side relatives.

4. The Petitioner No.1 in support of his caste claim submitted Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of his mother i.e. Petitioner No.2. In addition he had submitted the documentary evidence of maternal relatives to substantiate his caste claim as belonging to 'Mahar'.

5. The Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents which are of the year 1948, 1954, 1966 and so on. The Scrutiny Committee had held that these documents show that the caste of the maternal relatives of the Petitioner No.1 is 'Mahar'. The Scrutiny Committee has then referred to the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of the mother of the Petitioner No.1. According to the Scrutiny Committee, Caste Validity Certificate had been issued by the Pune Scrutiny Committee, however, it is not clear as to on what basis and documents, the validity has been granted. Therefore, the Petitioner was called upon by the Scrutiny Committee to bring all those documents, on the basis of which, his mother's caste claim was validated by Pune Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner No.1 and his mother attended the office and submitted the documents as sought.

6. The Scrutiny Committee then observed that the validity has been given on the basis of the documents of the ancestors of the Petitioner's mother. According to the Scrutiny Committee, those documents have no nexus with the documents of the paternal relatives of the Petitioner No.1. The Scrutiny Committee has further recorded on the basis of information given by the Petitioner No.1's mother, that the father named Kulbhushan Chopda of the Petitioner No.1 was 'Mona Punjabi' and that the Petitioner No.1's father started residing separately after one year of the birth of Petitioner No.1 and that on 3/4/2011 he expired.

7. According to the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner No.1 has not filed any document to show that the mother of the Petitioner No.1 has obtained divorce prior to the death of the Petitioner No.1's father. The Petitioner No.1's date of birth is 28/12/2002. Thereafter the Scrutiny Committee by relying upon Rule 16 of the 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 Caste Certificate Rules, 2012') has held that it is mandatory to submit the documentary evidence from the paternal side relatives of the Applicant in support of caste claim. The same having been not done, the caste claim of the Petitioner No.1 has been invalidated.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader though made an attempt to justify the order, we find the approach of the Scrutiny Committee completely erroneous and against the decisions rendered by this Court.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3254/2021 in the case of Kasturi Sushma Khandekar V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. while considering similar such issue has held that the issue as to which out of the two social status, one that of the father and the other that of the mother could be claimed by the person would depend upon the evidence regarding the manner in which and by whom the person has been reared. In the said case, so also in the present case, the facts would show that Petitioner No.1 has bee