ABHILASH HASRATH SAVALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition thereby challenging the impugned Order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No.2) dated 19 January 2012 whereby his caste claim of "Tokare Koli" Scheduled Tribe, has been rejected though there are validity certificate issued by the same Caste Scrutiny Committee, in favour of Petitioner's cousin namely Ganesh A. Sawale dated 06.08.2005 and Rajesh A. Sawale dated 30.04.2008 (sons of real uncle). Both these certificates are part of record, show that the first cousins (paternal side) of the Petitioner have been granted the caste validity certificate being belong to "Tokare Koli" Scheduled Tribe.

(2.) There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent and/or any Authority have challenged and/or tested the validity of those certificates at relevant time and till this date though time was sought for the same. Last affidavit which is placed on record dated 15 June 2012 filed by the State Government only shows their intention to challenge the same. This Court by an Order dated 29.10.2012 therefore directed the State Government to file affidavit as to why those certificates were accepted and acted upon. There is no such affidavit filed on record.

(3.) Even otherwise considering the Judgment of the Supreme Court including Judgment passed by this Court in the case of (1) Apporva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors, 2010 6 MhLJ 401 and (2) Sanjay Bajirao More Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2015 6 MhLJ 822, and other similar reportable of this Court including Mohan Babli Ransing Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.7320 of 2009 dated 6 May 2016, whereby we have accepted the similar contention so far as grant of validity certificates to the paternal side relatives and its effect on the other relative like Petitioners who rely upon the same. This is also in the background that there is no case of fraud and/or misrepresentation made out and/or proved. We are inclined to observe if any case of fraud or misrepresentation is made out by sufficient material and if it is proved, the Respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law against the concerned parties.