PRASANT PRATAPRAO HANGARGEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November/1st December, 2005 passed by the Castes and Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, (for short the Scrutiny Committee) invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Bhope tribe".

(2.) Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee on the following grounds.

(3.) Before the Scrutiny Committee in all 12 documents were produced. Documents at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 which relate to the petitioner himself, his father show the caste of the petitioner and his father as Maratha. In the documents at Sr. Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the caste is not mentioned and they are not relevant for determining the caste. The document at Sr. No. 1 is a certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, validity of which was under consideration before the Scrutiny Committee, and therefore, the same is not relevant. The document at Sr. No. 12 strongly relied upon by the petitioner is a copy of the decision in File No. 59/1 rendered by District Court, Osmanabad. The said case related to a dispute between private persons in respect of right of worship and performing Pooja of Tuljabhavani Goddess. While considering the issue as to who had the right to worship, the District Judge appears to have observed that the defendants Nos. 2 to 21 therein were "Palkars, Brahmins, Lingayats and Rajputs", defendant No. 22 and 23 were "Yevdari" defendants 24 and 25 were "Gondhali" and defendants 26 to 29 were "Bhope". The observations made by the District Judge in the said judgment regarding the caste of the parties was in relation to their right to perform Pooja and Worship in the temple. The District Court was not at all required, nor had the jurisdiction to determine the caste of the parties so as to determine the social status of the parties therein. The decision rendered in the said case is not a judgment in rem but is a judgment in personam and binds only the parties therein. The defendant No. 8 in the said suit is alleged to be the ancestor of the present petitioner. There is no reference to the caste of the defendant No. 8 in the said judgment of the District Court. Therefore, assuming that the judgment is relevant, it did not determine the caste of the ancestor of the petitioner as "Bhope".