Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sagar Bhupal Malage, an Assistant Public Prosecutor in Sangola, Maharashtra, challenged the order dated 11/9/2014 of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur, which rejected his claim of belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste. The sole ground for rejection was that the petitioner originally belonged to Taluka Chikkodi, Belgaum District, Karnataka, and thus was not entitled to Scheduled Caste status in Maharashtra. The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court. The court noted that the issue was no longer res integra and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra. The court observed that undisputedly, prior to reorganisation, Taluka Chikkodi (in Belgaum District) and Kolhapur (where the petitioner migrated) were part of the same State. Therefore, merely on the ground of migration, the petitioner could not be denied his claim of social status. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the petitioner's claim on merits, uninfluenced by the migration ground.
Headnote
A) Caste Scrutiny - Scheduled Caste Claim - Migration - Reorganisation - Petitioner's claim for Mahar Scheduled Caste was rejected by Scrutiny Committee solely on ground that he originally belonged to Karnataka - Held that if both the place of origin and place of migration were part of same State prior to reorganisation, migration alone cannot deny social status - Petition allowed, impugned order quashed (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who originally belonged to a Scheduled Caste in a different State but migrated to Maharashtra is entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status in Maharashtra when both areas were part of the same State prior to reorganisation.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 11/9/2014 quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 directed to reconsider petitioner's claim on merits, uninfluenced by the ground of migration.
Law Points
- Caste claim cannot be denied solely on ground of migration if both areas were part of same State prior to reorganisation
- Principle in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra applied
