2022:BHC-AS:6535-DB JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3254 OF 2021 Kasturi Sushma Khandekar … Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Makrand Kale a/w. Mr. S.R. Ghanavat for the Petitioner Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the Respondent - State CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &

G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 22 MARCH 2022 Oral Judgment (Per Sunil Shukre, J.) :-

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.

3. The main issue involved in this Petition is about which of the two social status, one that of the father and the other that of the mother could be claimed by the Petitioner. The answer to the question would depend upon the evidence regarding the manner in which and by whom the Petitioner has been reared.

4. In the present case, on going through the vigilance report and also the document relating to school entry, one can at once say that the Petitioner has been almost entirely brought up by her mother who belongs to Mahar Scheduled Caste. The mother and the father of the Petitioner were married on 25 April 1993 but soon after the marriage, discord struck the couple as a result of which, the couple could never reconcile their differences. The inevitable occurred in November 2009 when there was a consent decree of divorce granted by the Competent Civil Court. The Petitioner having been born in August 2002 was hardly seven years of age at that time and was thereafter, raised by her mother as a single parent. Even before the divorce, the record shows that the Petitioner was looked after and taken care of in all respect by her mother. The Vigilance Enquiry Officer, on making a detailed enquiry, found that father of the Petitioner never cared for his two children and never related to them in any manner nor did he take his children to any of his paternal relative. The Vigilance Officer has found that the children or the two siblings including the Petitioner do not recognize any of the paternal relatives. He has also noted that while admitting the Petitioner to the first standard of a school, her mother showed the Petitioner as belonging to Mahar caste. He has further found that the grandfather of the children follows customs, traditions and practices prevailing in Mahar caste.

5. Thus, the evidence shows that for all purposes the Petitioner has grown and has been reared in an atmosphere and with customs, traditions and practices that prevail in a household inhabited by Mahar caste persons, which is the caste of the mother of the Petitioner from maternal side. This evidence would certainly entitle the Petitioner to stake a claim as belonging to Mahar caste, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v/s. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 400, which is followed by this Court in many of its judgments including the one in the case of Anchal d/o. Bharati Badwaik v/s. District Caste Scrutiny Committee and Ors. (WP No.4905 of 2018, decided on 8 April 2019). However, while invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee erroneously held that the Petitioner ought to have submitted evidence from the side of her father in order to prove her claim. In the face of evidence overwhelmingly favouring the case of the Petitioner showing that she is entitled to claim the social status of her mother, the Scrutiny Committee took quite a contrary view ignoring the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Naika (supra).

6. Further perusal of the impugned order also shows that the Scrutiny Committee has failed to properly appreciate the evidence brought on record by the Petitioner, which was in the nature of entries of relatives of the Petitioner from maternal side. In fact, we have already held that the Petitioner is entitled to claim the same social status as her mother, she having been almost entirely brought up by her