RAJMATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2 Aurangabad Division, Latur (respondent No. 2) dtd. 6/11/2009 by which it has invalidated the caste certificate issued to her as 'Kunbi (OBC) ' under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter 'Act XXIII of 2001 ').

(2.) Learned senior advocate Mr. Dhorde would submit that the committee has discarded petitioner 's claim in a slipshod manner and with a prejudiced approach. It has not assigned sound and cogent reasons for discarding the pre-independence documents substantiating her claim as 'Kunbi ' but has readily accepted the ones produced by the respondent No. 3, who was questioning it. He would submit that ignoring the law laid down in the matter of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others; 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 the scrutiny committee has illegally refused to rely upon the validity certificates issued in favour of her relatives. The old record produced by the respondent No. 3 was not objectively scrutinized and has been readily accepted and used against the petitioner. No sufficient opportunity was extended to the petitioner to lead additional evidence or to call the witnesses for recording testimonies simply by observing that at some earlier point of time she had refused that opportunity and also on the ground that the decision was to be taken within the time stipulated by the High Court. This has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. She has been deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence.

(3.) Mr. Dhorde would then submit that the whole exercise of undertaking scrutiny of the petitioner 's certificate by the Aurangabad Committee/respondent No. 2 is void ab initio. The caste certificate was issued by the competent authority at Pusad which was within the territorial limits of Amravati Division and any scrutiny about its validity ought to have been conducted by Amravati Committee and not by the Aurangabad Committee-respondent No.2. As per the government notification dtd. 14/9/2007 when different committees were constituted for defined territories, the Aurangabad Committee/respondent no. 2 did not have jurisdiction. Besides, as per the notification dtd. 14/9/2007 the composition of the Scrutiny Committee itself was void inasmuch as it was not presided over by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). According to Mr. Dhorde in view of such composition, the matter would go to the root of the jurisdiction and even for this reason the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is null and void.