{"id":15588,"date":"2009-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-02T08:55:08","modified_gmt":"2018-04-02T03:25:08","slug":"tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n               WRIT PETITION NO.7813 OF 2009\n\n     Dattu s\/o Namdev Thakur\n     Age: Yrs., occu. Service at \n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     Present working as Kendra Pramukh\n     Kendriya Primary School, \n     R\/o At post Pimpri (kh) \n\n\n\n\n                              \n     Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon.             - PETITIONER\n\n\n           VERSUS\n                    \n                   \n     1)   The State of Maharashtra\n          Through its Secretary\n      \n\n          Department of Tribal\n          Development, Mantralaya,\n   \n\n\n\n          Mumbai.\n\n\n\n\n\n     2)   Scheduled Tribe Certificate\n          Scrutiny Committee,\n          Nandurbar, Through\n          Member Secretary.\n\n\n\n\n\n     3)   The Chief Executive Officer\n          Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.\n\n\n     4)   The Education Officer(Primary)\n          Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::\n                                 2\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     5)   The Executive Magistrate\n          Yawal, Tq. Yawal,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n          District Jalgaon.                  - RESPONDENTS\n\n\n                               ___\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.8048 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     Amol s\/o Dattu Thakur\n                    \n     Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Student,\n     R\/o At Post Pimpri (Kh)\n                   \n     Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon.      - PETITIONER\n\n\n              VERSUS\n      \n\n\n     1)   The State of Maharashtra\n   \n\n\n\n          Through its Secretary\n          Department of Tribal\n\n\n\n\n\n          Development, Mantralaya,\n          Mumbai.\n\n\n     2)   Scheduled Tribe Certificate\n\n\n\n\n\n          Scrutiny Committee,\n          Nandurbar, Through\n          Member Secretary.\n\n\n     3)   The Chairman\n          Pravesh Niyamak Committee,\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::\n                                 3\n\n          Aliyawar Jung Marg,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n          Polytechnic Building,\n          Bandra (E), Mumbai-51.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n     4)   The Principal,\n          Seth Govind Raghunath\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n          Sable College of Pharmacy,\n          Saswad, Tq. Purandar,\n          District Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     5)\n                 \n          The Registrar,\n          Poona University, Pune.\n                \n     6)   The Sub Divisional Officer,\n          Sub-Division office,\n      \n\n          Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.               - RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n                            ___\n\n\n\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7289 OF 2009.\n\n\n     Kum.Pratibha d\/o Dattu Thakur\n     Age: 24 Yrs., occu. nil,\n\n\n\n\n\n     R\/o At Post Pimpri (Kh)\n     Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon.      - PETITIONER\n\n\n              VERSUS\n\n\n     1)   The State of Maharashtra\n\n\n\n\n                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::\n                                 4\n\n          Through its Secretary\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          Department of Tribal\n          Development, Mantralaya,\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n          Mumbai.\n\n\n     2)   Scheduled Tribe Certificate\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n          Scrutiny Committee,\n          Nandurbar, Through\n          Member Secretary.\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     3)\n                    \n          Under Secretary,\n          Maharashtra Public Service \n                   \n          Commission, Bank of India\n          Bldg., 3rd floor,\n          Mahatma Gandhi Road,\n      \n\n          Hutatma Chowk, \n          Mumbai - 4000 001.\n   \n\n\n\n     4)   The Principal,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Sane Guruji Vidya Probodhini\n          Sarva Samaveshak Shikshan\n          Shastra Mahavidyalaya, Khiroda,\n          Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n\n     5)   The Registrar,\n          North Maharashtra University,\n          Jalgaon.\n\n\n     6)   The Sub Divisional Officer,\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::\n                                      5\n\n          Sub-Division office,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n          Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.                     - RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                     \n                                 *****\n     Mr.MK Deshpande,Advocate for Petitioners;\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     Mr.SK Tambe,AGP for State;\n     Mr.US Malte, Advocate for Resp.No.2-Committee\n     Mr.MS Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & \n\n\n\n\n                                \n     4 (in WP7813\/09)\n                     ig      -----\n                   \n                             CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &\n                                      K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.\n                          \n                             DATE  :  14th December, 2009.\n      \n\n\n                                              \n     JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) \n<\/pre>\n
     1)          Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By <\/p>\n
     consent of parties heard finally.\n<\/p>\n
     2)          Since   the   issue   involved   in   these   writ <\/p>\n
     petition is identical, therefore, these petitions <\/p>\n
     are   being   heard   and   disposed   of   by   this   common <\/p>\n
     judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     3)          The       petitioners        claim              to          be <\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
     `Thakur’   (scheduled   tribe).   Their   caste <\/p>\n
     certificates   issued   by   the   competent   authorities <\/p>\n
     on   7.6.2001   were   invalidated   by   the   Caste <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny   Committee   by   order   dated   4.9.2009   and <\/p>\n
     dated   24.9.2009   respectively   and   the   same   is <\/p>\n
     assailed in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 <\/p>\n
     and 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     4)<\/p>\n
               The   petitioner   –   Dattu   has   studied <\/p>\n
     initially up to Xth Std. and during the course of <\/p>\n
     his   employment,   he   has   completed   B.A.B.Ed.\n<\/p>\n
     course.     He   joined   as     primary   teacher   on <\/p>\n
     15.3.1994   and   was   promoted   time   to   time.   The <\/p>\n
     petitioner   had   a   certificate   dated   1.7.1981 <\/p>\n
     issued   by   the   Executive   Magistrate,   Yawal, <\/p>\n
     certifying that the petitioner is scheduled tribe <\/p>\n
     `Thakur’.   The   said   certificate   was   subjected   by <\/p>\n
     the Block Development Officer for its validation <\/p>\n
     on  22nd  October,  2003.    However,  since  the Caste <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny Committee did not decide it in time, the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   with   his   son   and   daughter   had <\/p>\n
     approached   this   Court   in   Writ   Petition   No. <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
     1270\/2006   and   the   Division   Bench   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
     disposed   of  the  same   with   directions     to   decide <\/p>\n
     the   caste   claim   of   the   petitioner   within   four <\/p>\n
     months from 17.4.2006 in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     5)         The petitioners – Amol s\/o Dattu Thakur <\/p>\n
     and   Kum.Pratibha   d\/o   Dattu   Thakur,   while   they <\/p>\n
     were   studying   in   XIth   Std.,   their   caste <\/p>\n
     certificates were forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee for validation purpose.\n<\/p>\n
     6)         Petitioner   –   Amol   and   Kum.Pratibha   were <\/p>\n
     born on 10.01.1989 and 23.4.1986 respectively and <\/p>\n
     they   received   the   Caste   Certificates   from   the <\/p>\n
     Competent Authority on 7.6.2001.\n<\/p>\n
     7)         Vigilance   Cell   report   was   called,   which <\/p>\n
     was   verified   by   the   petitioner   –   Dattu.     Since <\/p>\n
     simultaneously   the   scrutiny   and   inquiry   in <\/p>\n
     respect   of   the   petitioners   –   Amol   and <\/p>\n
     Kum.Prathibha was conducted on 23rd January, 2009, <\/p>\n
     the Vigilance Officer had submitted the report on <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
     3rd of April, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     8)        Mr.Deshpande,   learned   Counsel   appearing <\/p>\n
     for   the   petitioners   contended   that   the   Caste <\/p>\n
     Scrutiny   Committee   failed   to   appreciate   the <\/p>\n
     documents   in   proper   perspective.     The   Order   of <\/p>\n
     the   Committee   is   against   the   law,   justice   and <\/p>\n
     equity.   The   Committee   has   erred   in   appreciating <\/p>\n
     the   School   Leaving   Certificate   of   Namdeo   Bandu <\/p>\n
     Thakur of 1928, who, is father of the petitioner <\/p>\n
     –   Dattu   and   grand-father   of   petitioners   –   Amol <\/p>\n
     and Kum.Pratibha, which disclose that he belonged <\/p>\n
     to Thakur caste.\n<\/p>\n
     9)        The  learned  Counsel  for  the  petitioners <\/p>\n
     relied upon the Judgment in the matter of  Shilpa  <\/p>\n
     Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. –\n<\/p>\n
     2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995 (Full Bench) and also to the <\/p>\n
     Judgment   in   the   matter   of  Pandurang   Rangnath  <\/p>\n
     Chavan   Vs.  State  of Maharashtra  and  Ors.  –  1998  <\/p>\n
     (2) Mh.L.J. 806.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
     10)       We have verified the original record in <\/p>\n
     respect   of   the   petitioners   produced   by   Shri <\/p>\n
     Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     11)       We   have   perused   the   Judgments   cited <\/p>\n
     (supra).     In   the   Full   Bench   Judgment,   it   is <\/p>\n
     observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
               “The nature of the inquiry in regard
\n               to   the   claim   of   a   candidate   to <\/p>\n
               belong   to   a   Scheduled   Tribe   is   not
\n               merely   to   be   confined   to   an
\n               examination   of   the   birth   and   the <\/p>\n
               school   records   and   of   documentary <\/p>\n
               evidence   but   would   involve   an
\n               investigation of the affinity of the
\n               candidate   with   a   tribe,   or   as   the <\/p>\n
               case may be, tribal community. Thus,
\n               the process of verification of caste
\n               claims which came to be governed by <\/p>\n
               the Judgment of the Supreme Court in
\n               Madhuri   Patil   involved   an   inquiry
\n               not   merely   into   the   documentary
\n               materials on the basis of which the
\n               caste claim is founded but equally a
\n               verification   of   the   claim   with
\n               reference   to   the   affinity   of   the <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
       candidate   with   a   designated <\/p>\n
       Scheduled   Tribe.   The   inquiry   would
\n       comprehend   within   its   purview <\/p>\n
       anthropological   and   ethnological
\n       traits.     The   Committee   would   be
\n       entitled   to   inquire   into   the <\/p>\n
       question as to whether the applicant
\n       has established an affinity with the
\n       tribe. The yardstick for determining <\/p>\n
       such   affinity   includes   the   rituals <\/p>\n
       of   the   tribe   and   its   customs,
\n       worships, ceremonies associated with <\/p>\n
       birth,   marriage   and   death   and   the
\n       conventions   followed   for   the
\n       disposal   of   dead   bodies.   Right <\/p>\n
       through   the   ages,   int   he   evolution
\n       of   the   human   race,   birth,   marriage <\/p>\n
       and death have been considered to be
\n       milestones   around   which   customs   and <\/p>\n
       rituals   of   communities   have   grown.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Worship is an integral aspect of the
\n       life   of   a   community   and   tribal
\n       communities   are   identifiable   with <\/p>\n
       reference   to   specific   modes   of
\n       worship.   The   affinity   test   which
\n       comprehends   all   these   aspects   is,
\n       therefore,   not   extraneous   to   the
\n       process   of   identifying   whether   the
\n       applicant   is   a   genuine   member   of   a <\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
               tribe or is an imposter fraudulently <\/p>\n
               claiming   the   benefits   of   a
\n               reservation   to   which   he   is   not <\/p>\n
               entitled.”\n<\/p>\n
               It   is   also   observed   in   para   35   as <\/p>\n
     under :\n<\/p>\n
               “35. We   have   adverted   to   the <\/p>\n
               judgments of the Division Benches of <\/p>\n
               this Court in order to emphasize that
\n               the  line   of  reasoning   that   has   been <\/p>\n
               followed is that before an applicant
\n               can   be   validly   regarded   as   being
\n               eligible   to   receive   the   benefits <\/p>\n
               attached   to   being   a   member   of   a
\n               Scheduled   Tribe,   the   burden   lies   on <\/p>\n
               the applicant to establish membership
\n               of   the   tribe.     An   inquiry   into <\/p>\n
               whether   the   applicant   belongs   to   a
\n               Scheduled   Tribe   is   not   precluded   by
\n               the   Presidential   Order   or   by   the
\n               Judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court   in <\/p>\n
               Palghat   Jilla   Thandan   and   Milind
\n               Katware.     For   the   purposes   of
\n               determining   as   to   whether   an
\n               applicant   belongs   to   a   Scheduled
\n               Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee has to
\n               be satisfied on the basis of all the <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
             available material on the record that <\/p>\n
             such is the position. The material on
\n             the record would include documentary <\/p>\n
             evidence   and   oral   evidence   and
\n             comprehend   the   application   of   the
\n             affinity test.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12)      In   para   40(ii)(a)   and   (c),   the   Full
\n     Bench observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “40.(i)……………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii)(a)The   mere   fact   that   the
\n              documents   produced   by   a   person <\/p>\n
              reflect   his   surname   as   being
\n              synonymous   with   the   name   of   a
\n              designated   tribe,   is   not   sufficient <\/p>\n
              to   establish   that   the   applicant
\n              belongs   to   a   Scheduled   Tribe. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Before   a   person   can   be   regarded   as
\n              belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, that <\/p>\n
              person must demonstrably be a member
\n              of   the   tribe.     Allowing   claims
\n              merely   on   the   basis   of   an   overlap
\n              between the surname of the person as <\/p>\n
              reflected   in   the   documents   produced
\n              and   the   name   of   a   designated   tribe
\n              may result in a grave miscarriage of
\n              justice   and   lead   to   the   grant   of
\n              benefits   to   persons   who   are   not
\n              genuinely   members   of   a   designated <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
       tribe.     In   Order   to   determine, <\/p>\n
       whether   a   person   genuinely   belongs
\n       to a designated Scheduled Tribe, the <\/p>\n
       Scrutiny   Committee   must   have   regard
\n       to   the   entire   body   of   evidence
\n       including   on   the   question   as   to <\/p>\n
       whether   the   applicant   has   satisfied
\n       the affinity test.\n<\/p>\n
       (b)……………………………\n<\/p>\n
       (c) Where   a   person   has   some <\/p>\n
       document,   in   his   or   her   favour
\n       and\/or   partially   satisfies   the <\/p>\n
       crucial   affinity   test,   the   question
\n       as   to   whether   certification   should
\n       be   granted   would   depend   upon   the <\/p>\n
       overall view which is formed by the
\n       Competent   Authority   in   the   first <\/p>\n
       instance   and   by   the   Scrutiny
\n       Committee   subsequently   on   the <\/p>\n
       preponderating     weight   of   the   e
\n       evidence.   The   nature   of   the
\n       documents   that   have   been   produced,
\n       the   genuineness   and   authenticity   of <\/p>\n
       the   documentary   evidence   and   the
\n       weight   to   be   ascribed   to   the
\n       documents   produced,   are   matters
\n       which   must   be   decided   by   the
\n       authority concerned.  If a candidate
\n       has   satisfied   the   crucial   affinity <\/p>\n
                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
                test   in   part,   it   is   for   the <\/p>\n
                Competent Authority and the Scrutiny
\n                Committee to determine in each case <\/p>\n
                as   to   whether,   on   considering   the
\n                entire   material   on   the   record,   the
\n                caste claim is correct and genuine.\n<\/p>\n
                An answer in the abstract cannot be
\n                furnished.     it   is   for   the   quasi-\n<\/p>\n
                judicial   authority   in   each   case   to <\/p>\n
                arrive   at   its   finding   on   the   basis <\/p>\n
                of the material on the record.”\n<\/p>\n
     13)        Before   adverting   to   the   petitioners’ <\/p>\n
     claim   to   be   belonging   to   Thakur   tribe,   a <\/p>\n
     Scheduled Tribe having entry at Serial No. 44 in <\/p>\n
     the   List   of   Scheduled   Tribe,   we   shall   have   to <\/p>\n
     consider that term `Thakur’ has reference even at <\/p>\n
     Serial   No.22   in   the   List   of     Nomadic   Tribe   as <\/p>\n
     Thakur\/Thakar. These persons lead nomadic way of <\/p>\n
     life,   move   from   village   to   village.   Even   Thakur <\/p>\n
     is   seen   in   Kshatriya,   Rajput   and   various   other <\/p>\n
     communities in the region.\n<\/p>\n
     14)        In   the   light   of   this   situation   and   as <\/p>\n
     the Full Bench has observed, merely stating that <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
     in the School record caste is written as `Thakur’ <\/p>\n
     by   itself   will   not   be   sufficient   to   accept   the <\/p>\n
     same, to be in the category of scheduled tribes.\n<\/p>\n
     For   this   purpose,   the   candidate   has   to   satisfy <\/p>\n
     the   various   rigid   tests   of   traits, <\/p>\n
     characteristics   and   customs   for   indicating   his <\/p>\n
     association to Thakur, Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p>\n
     15)<\/p>\n
                The   Thakur   community,   belonging   to <\/p>\n
     Scheduled   Tribe,   indeed   was   restricted   to   25 <\/p>\n
     tehsils   of   five   districts,   i.e.   Ahmednagar, <\/p>\n
     Kolaba,   Nasik,   Pune   and     Thane   of   State   of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra.  However, the said area restriction, <\/p>\n
     which   was   in   operation   from   1.11.1956   to <\/p>\n
     26.7.1977  is   no  more   in  force.     The  consequence <\/p>\n
     flowing from such removal of area restriction by <\/p>\n
     itself would not allow a person to stake claim to <\/p>\n
     be   belonging   to   Thakur,   Scheduled   Tribe,   unless <\/p>\n
     such person established that his forefathers have <\/p>\n
     migrated from hilly area\/tribal area or that they <\/p>\n
     form   group   of   triblals   in   the   particular   area.\n<\/p>\n
     This requirement has been necessitated as Thakur <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
     is   referred   universally   for   recognition   of <\/p>\n
     various   castes,   and   need   not   be   restricted   to <\/p>\n
     Thakur, as scheduled tribe.  In the light of this <\/p>\n
     situation,   needless   to   add,   mere   reference     of <\/p>\n
     caste as Thakur in the caste column in any school <\/p>\n
     record   by  itself   should  not   be  a  sole   criterion <\/p>\n
     to   define   a   person   to   be   belonging   to   Thakur, <\/p>\n
     scheduled tribe.\n<\/p>\n
     16)        The   petitioner   –   Dattu   has   tendered <\/p>\n
     School   record   of   his   father   Namdeo   Bandu   Thakur <\/p>\n
     of the year 1928, which showed that he belongs to <\/p>\n
     Thakur   caste.   The   contention   that   it   has   the <\/p>\n
     presumptive   value   by   itself   is   difficult   to <\/p>\n
     adhere   upon.   The   Committee   find   that     father’s <\/p>\n
     record   did   not   elaborate   that   Thakur     reference <\/p>\n
     is   of   scheduled   tribe.     The   Committee   has <\/p>\n
     referred,   the   Government   of   Bombay,   vide <\/p>\n
     Government Resolution   in General Department No. <\/p>\n
     9330 dated 29th May, 1933, classified the Backward <\/p>\n
     Classes   and   list   of   Backward   Classes     was <\/p>\n
     scheduled to the said Government Resolution.   So <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
     far as Tribal Communities are concerned, the list <\/p>\n
     was   scheduled   in   Schedule-II   under   the   head <\/p>\n
     `Aboriginal     and  Hill   Tribes’  and   at  Sr.No.  26, <\/p>\n
     Thakur   Tribe   was   scheduled.   The   Committee <\/p>\n
     observed   ”   Had   the   petitioner   –   Dattu’s   father <\/p>\n
     originally belongs to Thakur Tribe, his caste as <\/p>\n
     Thakur   tribe   would   have   been   mentioned   in   his <\/p>\n
     school record.  In the school record, there is no <\/p>\n
     reference   whatsoever   which   indicates   that   the <\/p>\n
     father   of   the   petitioner   –     Dattu   belonged   to <\/p>\n
     Thakur   Tribe   community.”     We   subscribe   to   the <\/p>\n
     observations of the Committee on this score.   It <\/p>\n
     is pertinent, that the School Leaving Certificate <\/p>\n
     of petitioner – Dattu’s father Namdeo was issued <\/p>\n
     by Head Master, Zilla Parishad Marathi   Mulanchi <\/p>\n
     Shala,   Bamnod,   Tq.   Yawal,   District   Jalgaon <\/p>\n
     bearing   Registration   No.   164   Book   No.   12,   dated <\/p>\n
     16.3.1998,   where   the   caste   is   mentioned   as <\/p>\n
     Thakur.\n<\/p>\n
     17)        The   petitioner   –   Dattu   also   tendered   a <\/p>\n
     School Leaving Certificate of his younger brother <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   18<\/span><\/p>\n
     –   Gajanan   Namdeo   Thakur,   in   which     the   caste <\/p>\n
     Hindu   (____)   (OBC)   is   mentioned.     This   document <\/p>\n
     indeed   could   not   have   been   coined   by   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   –   Dattu   or   for   his   son   petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
     Amol or daughter petitioner – Kum.Pratibha, to be <\/p>\n
     decisive   document   to   accept   Thakur   as   scheduled <\/p>\n
     tribe.\n<\/p>\n
     18)<\/p>\n
                In   the   School   record   of   petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
     Dattu   and   his   younger   brother   Gajanan,   the <\/p>\n
     Vigilance   Cell   found,   no   specific   caste   is <\/p>\n
     mentioned,   but   their   category   is   mentioned   as <\/p>\n
     Hindu   _____   (OBC).     In   the   School   record   of <\/p>\n
     petitioner   –   Dattu’s   elder   sister   Janabai,   he <\/p>\n
     caste   is   found   to   have   been   recorded   as   Hindu <\/p>\n
     Thakur.     The   views   taken   by   the   Committee, <\/p>\n
     negativing   the   caste   claim,   based   on   the <\/p>\n
     documentation,   being   a   fact   finding   aspect,   do <\/p>\n
     not   appear   to   be   arbitrary,   erroneous   or <\/p>\n
     activated with any influence of error of record.\n<\/p>\n
     19)        The Committee had also verified the <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
     caste   certificates   of   Dattu’s   elder   brother, <\/p>\n
     cousin   uncle   and   son   Amol   and   daughter <\/p>\n
     Kum.Pratibha respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     20)        One should not be oblivious,   the caste <\/p>\n
     claim   of   petitioner   –     Amol   and   his   sister, <\/p>\n
     petitioner   –   Kum.Pratibha,   are   subject   to <\/p>\n
     scrutiny   and   are   negatived,   which   is   subject   of <\/p>\n
     the present writ petitions, cannot be branded to <\/p>\n
     be a best document.\n<\/p>\n
     21)        The   Committee   found   that   petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
     Dattu or for that purpose petitioner – Amol   or <\/p>\n
     Kum.Pratibha,   could   not   prove   socio   cultural <\/p>\n
     affinity   and   ethnic   linkage   towards   Thakur, <\/p>\n
     scheduled tribe, appeared at Serial No. 44 in the <\/p>\n
     list of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
     22)        The   Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes, <\/p>\n
     Scheduled     Tribes,   De-Notified   Tribes,   (Vimukta <\/p>\n
     Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other   Backward   Classes <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   20<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   Special   Backward   Category   (Regulation   of <\/p>\n
     Issuance   and   Verification   of)   Caste   Certificate <\/p>\n
     Act, 2000, contemplate burden to prove, that the <\/p>\n
     person   belongs   to   such   caste,   tribe   or   class, <\/p>\n
     shall   be   on   such   claimant\/applicant.     In   this <\/p>\n
     scenario   of  the   matter,  it   is  difficult   to  only <\/p>\n
     criticize   the   approach   of   the   Caste   Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee and allow the petitioners herein to sit <\/p>\n
     with   folded   hands   and   criticize   the   action.   The <\/p>\n
     action   desires   that   the   petitioners   have   to <\/p>\n
     discharge   their   burden   to   establish   their <\/p>\n
     particular caste.\n<\/p>\n
     23)        Rule   4   of   The   Maharashtra   Scheduled <\/p>\n
     Tribes   (Regulation   of   Issuance   and   Verification <\/p>\n
     of)   Certificate   Rules,   2003,   illustrate   the <\/p>\n
     procedure   to   be   followed   by   the   Competent <\/p>\n
     Authority while grant of certificate or rejection <\/p>\n
     of   application   for   scheduled   tribe   certificate.\n<\/p>\n
     This empowers the Competent Authority to hold an <\/p>\n
     inquiry   and   to   gather   the   material   for <\/p>\n
     ascertaining the foundation of the claim.\n<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
     24)        Mr.Malte,   learned   Counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
     the Caste Scrutiny Committee has referred to the <\/p>\n
     orders   in   Writ   Petition   No.1953\/2007   (   Deepika <\/p>\n
     Subhash More Vs. State of Maharashtra);  reported <\/p>\n
     judgment   of   the   Apex   Court   in   the   matter   of <\/p>\n
     Lillykutty   Vs.  Scrutiny     Committee,   SC  &  ST  and <\/p>\n
     Ors. – (2005) 8 SCC 283; order in Writ Petition <\/p>\n
     No.   2175\/2008   (   Kum.Seema   S.   Bhadekar   Vs.   State <\/p>\n
     of Maharashtra); order in Writ Petition No. 2320 <\/p>\n
     of   2006  (  Babarao   s\/o  Manikrao   Padalwar   Vs.  The <\/p>\n
     State   of   Mah.   and   Ors.);   Judgment   of   the   Apex <\/p>\n
     Court  in   the  matter  of   Raju  Ramsingh   Vasave  Vs. <\/p>\n
     Mahesh   Deorao   Bhivapurkar   and   Ors.   -2009   (1) <\/p>\n
     Mh.L.1;   Judgment   in   Writ   Petition   No.   657\/1997 <\/p>\n
     (Pandurang   Hanmantrao   Yesardekar   Vs.   State   of <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra and Ors.)<\/p>\n
     25)        So far as the caste claim of petitioner <\/p>\n
     Amol is concerned, the documents tendered before <\/p>\n
     the   Committee   for   scrutiny   are   more   or   less <\/p>\n
     identical   to   those   of   his   father   –   Dattu   (i.e.\n<\/p>\n
     petitioner in WP No.7813\/2009).   In addition, we <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
     also find that the School Leaving Certificate of <\/p>\n
     Chhabi   Namdeo   Thakur   and   Janabai   Namdeo   Thakur <\/p>\n
     (i.e. aunts of petitioner – Amol), were tendered, <\/p>\n
     which   showed   that   Aunts   of   petitioner   –   Amol <\/p>\n
     belonged   to   Hindu   Thakur   as   per   their   school <\/p>\n
     record.     The   Certificate   of   Validity   of   Vinod <\/p>\n
     Vasantrao   Suryawanshi   issued   by   the   Scrutiny <\/p>\n
     Committee dated 24.3.2000 will not be a criterion <\/p>\n
     to   be   acted   upon   in   respect   of   caste   claim   of <\/p>\n
     petitioner   –   Amol   and   the   same   is   on   different <\/p>\n
     pedestal.\n<\/p>\n
     26)         The   Committee   has   found   that   the <\/p>\n
     documents   tendered   by   the   petitioners   do   not <\/p>\n
     conform   to   the   claim   and   correctness   of   the <\/p>\n
     scheduled   tribe.     A   mere   fact   that   documents <\/p>\n
     produced   by   the   petitioners   or       petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
     Dattu’s   father   Namdeo,   referred   as   Thakur   or <\/p>\n
     surname   is   referred   as   Thakur   synonymous   to   the <\/p>\n
     caste Thakur, is not sufficient to establish that <\/p>\n
     petitioners   belong   to   a   scheduled   tribe.   It   was <\/p>\n
     requirement for the petitioners to demonstrate to <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>
\n                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
     be   a   member   of   the   tribe.     The     Committee <\/p>\n
     evaluated   the   documents   and   traits   and <\/p>\n
     characteristics,   the   answers   given   by   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners   and   the   Committee   did   not   approve <\/p>\n
     that   they   meet   requirement   to   satisfy,   to   be <\/p>\n
     belonging to Thakur (scheduled tribe).\n<\/p>\n
     27)       Taking   survey   of   all   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
     considering the documents placed on record, we do <\/p>\n
     not   find   any   infirmity,   irregularity   in   the <\/p>\n
     orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in <\/p>\n
     rejecting   the   caste   claims   of   the   petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                sd\/-                     sd\/-      \n           (K.U.CHANDIWAL)          (NARESH H. PATIL)\n               JUDGE                     JUDGE\n\n                \n\n\n\n\n\n     bdv\/wp7813.09\n     fldr.11.12.09\n\n     Authentic copy\n\n     (BD VADNERE,PS)\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:24:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 Bench: Naresh H. Patil, K.U. Chandiwal 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7813 OF 2009 Dattu s\/o Namdev Thakur Age: Yrs., occu. Service at Present working as Kendra Pramukh Kendriya Primary School, R\/o […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2675,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009"},"wordCount":2675,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009","name":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T03:25:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tq-dharangaon-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-14-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tq. Dharangaon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}