wp4505.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4505/2015
PETITIONER: Balaji s/o Suda Lokhande,
aged about 45 years, Occupation :
Agriculturist, r/o Palasgaon (Jat),
Tah. Shindewahi, District : Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Member Secretary
Gadchiroli, Division, Gadchiroli.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chimur,
District : Chandrapur.
3. Ramchandra s/o Zitu Randaye,
aged about 50 years, Occupation :
agriculturist, r/o Palasgaon (Jat),
Tah. Shindewahi, District : Chandrapur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Sneha Dhote, Adv. h/f Shri Rajnish R. Vyas, Adv. for petitioner
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri S.M. Bahirwar, Advocate for respondent no.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 20.08.2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:18:44 :::wp4505.15.odt 2 By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of the validity certificate in favour of the respondent no.3, validating the claim of the respondent no.3 to belong to Mana Scheduled Tribe.
Inter alia, the petitioner has challenged the validity certificate on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee had not conducted the vigilance enquiry in the matter of the tribe claim of the respondent no.3 and had also not conducted the affinity test. It is stated that as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to conduct the affinity test as well as the vigilance enquiry before validating a tribe claim. It is stated that though the petitioner has purchased the land of the respondent, long back in the year 2002, on the basis of a caste validity certificate, which is issued in favour of the respondent no.3, on the mere asking, the respondent no.3 is seeking the restoration of the possession of the land.
It appears on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties that the certificate of validity is issued in favour of the respondent no.3 without conducting the vigilance enquiry and the affinity test. It is well settled that while verifying a tribe claim, it would be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to conduct a vigilance enquiry in the matter of the tribe claim and also consider whether the claimant has affinity towards the tribe to which he/she claims to belong. Since the mandatory ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:18:44 ::: wp4505.15.odt 3 procedure that was required to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee was not followed in the case of the respondent no.3, the impugned certificate is liable to be set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The caste validity certificate issued in favour of the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to reconsider the caste claim of the respondent no.3 as early as possible and positively within one year.
The respondent no.3 undertakes to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 02.09.2016 so that issuance of notice to the respondent no.3 could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:18:44 :::
wp4505.15.odt
4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 23/08/2016 ::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2016 00:18:44 :::