Proper inquiry and due process of law are essential in validating caste claims based on blood relatives, and fraud in obtaining validity certificates can invalidate caste claims.

ORDER :

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 13.05.2022 passed by respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat, thereby rejecting caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe.

3. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority had issued caste certificate in his favour. The claim of the petitioner was referred for verification to the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, which was supported by validity of the blood relative i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad (real uncle), so also some other documents. The Committee on its own, examined the record in the matter of his uncle’s validity and found that the claim of the cousin uncle of the petitioner namely Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was invalidated in the year 1998. By suppressing the said fact he obtained fresh validity. The real uncle of the petitioner namely Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad has obtained his validity certificate on 03.06.2011 based on validity granted to Vishwanath. Accordingly, the Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner by discarding evidence in the nature of validity of Pandurang. Mr. Thorat would submit that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to furnish his explanation. He would further submit that so far as validity of the real uncle of the petitioner i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad is concerned, it has been issued after following due process of law. The report of the vigilance inquiry favors the caste claim of Pandurang. Therefore, even excluding the validity granted in favour of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, the validity granted in favour of the Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad dated 03.06.2011 can be maintained and caste claim of the petitioner could have been positively considered being close relative from paternal side of the validity holder.

4. The learned AGP strongly opposes the contention of the petitioner and justifies the order passed by the Committee.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and also perused the original files of petitioner and record pertaining to the caste validity relied before the Scrutiny Committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in support of his claim relied upon the caste validity certificate dated 03.06.2011 granted in favour of his real uncle i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad. While examining the claim of the petitioner, the Committee called record in respect of validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad as well as Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad. The Committee found that the caste claim of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was invalidated on 02.09.1998 and validity in case of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad is granted relying upon validity granted in favour of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad. Apparently, whole basis of validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad i.e. real uncle of the petitioner is based on fraud exercised by Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, thereby obtaining validity by suppressing his previous invalidation of the caste claim. It is true that the order granting validity in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad refers to the report of the vigilance cell and remark of the Research Officer. However, ultimate grant of validity to Pandurang is based on validity conferred in favour of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad.

6. We have perused the papers pertaining to file granting validity in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad and found that except validity in case of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, there is no other document that would support his caste claim.

7. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits