1 wp5419.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5419 OF 2013
Durgaprasad s/o. Ramdas Shrirame,
Aged about 39 years, Occ.Service,
r/o. Sironcha, Tq. Sironcha,
District Gadchiroli. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Gadchiroli.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 :::
2 wp5419.13.odt
____________________________________________________________
Ms Preeti Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.P.Gangane, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr.H.A.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 22nd November, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J) :
1. This Writ Petition challenges the Order dated 11th June, 2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Gadchiroli invalidating the claim of petitioner for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe Category, which is an entry at Sr.No.18 in the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950 in relation to the State of Maharasthra and invalidating the Caste Certificate dt.18.8.2004 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bramhapuri, Distirct Chandapur certifying that the petitioner belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe category.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 :::
3 wp5419.13.odt
2. Before the said Committee, the petitioner produced ten documents, out of which two documents were the Certificates of Validity issued on 13.3.2008 and 6.9.2010 in the name of Prakash Ramdas Shrirame and Ghansham Ramdas Shrirame respectively, the real brothers of petitioner for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe category. The other documents produced on record also indicate the caste of the petitioner and his blood relatives as 'Mana'. The oldest document taken into consideration is of 1921-22, which is the revenue record in the name of Ramji s/o Sumana, the great grand father of the petitioner.
3. In para 15 of the order impugned, the Committee holds that, so far as the documentary evidence is concerned, the caste of the applicant and his forefathers is consistently recorded as 'Mana' in their school and revenue records during the period 1921-22 to 1990. However, all the documents are rejected giving reasons as under :
(a) that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra for the first time in the year 1960, that too in the specified area only, and the petitioner has failed to establish that he or his forefathers hail from the said area ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 4 wp5419.13.odt and migrated to the present place of their residence, from the said specified scheduled area,
(b) that there are non-tribal communities like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., and the petitioner has failed to satisfy crucial affinity test to establish that he belongs to 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950,
(c) that in the year 1967, 'Mana' community was included in the list of Other Backward Classes at Serial No.268 and later on in the list of Special Backward Classes at Serial No.2 in relation to the State of Maharashtra, and
(d) that the documents produced simply indicate the caste as 'Mana' and not 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'.
4. In the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3308 of 2013 [Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende v. The Head-Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod, Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur, and others] decided on 8-11-2017, we have dealt with all the aforesaid ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 5 wp5419.13.odt reasoning and we point out below what we have held in the said decision.
5. In para 5 of the decision in Gajanan's case, we have held that the Committee was wrong in holding that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Scheduled Tribes Order in relation to the State of Maharashtra for the first time in the year 1960. We have also held that in fact, the said community was included in the said Order in the year 1956.
6. On the aspect of original place of residence and migration, we have held in para 7 of the said decision as under :
"7. ... The Act No.108 of 1976 was published in the gazette on 29-9-1976, and the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra for all the tribes, including 'Mana' tribe, was deleted. The members of different tribes or communities in the State of Maharashtra included in Entry No.18, are treated and conferred with the status of recognized Scheduled Tribes, irrespective of their place of residence in the State. The net result of such deletion was that the two-fold ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 6 wp5419.13.odt requirements of ordinary place of residence in tribal areas and migration to non-tribal areas, was done away with."
7. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., delivered in Civil Appeal No.2336 of 2011 on 8-3-2017, we have held in Gajanan's case that the petitioner was not required to establish that either his forefathers were the ordinary residents of the place meant for the tribals in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order prevailing prior to 1976 or that his forefathers migrated from the said area to the present place of residence. We have also held that the Committee was in error in taking such a view.
8. On the other aspect that there are non-tribal communities like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., we have considered the impact of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind, reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1, which overruled earlier decision in the case of Dina v. Narayansing, reported in 38 ELR 212. We have held in para 11 of the decision in Gajanan's case as under :
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 :::
7 wp5419.13.odt "11. ... The effect of overruling of the decision in Dina's case is that the entry 'Mana', which is now in the cluster of tribes at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, has to be read as it is and no evidence can be let in, to explain that entry 'Mana' means the one which is either a 'sub-tribe of Gond' or synonym of 'Gond' and/or it is not a sub-tribe either of 'Maratha' or of any other caste or tribe."
In para 12 of the said decision, we have held as under :
"12. ... To hold that 'Mana' in Entry No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order does not include 'Kashtriya Badwaik Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', etc., would amount to permitting evidence to be let in to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized Scheduled Tribe. Such tinkering with the Presidential Order is not permissible. Once it is established that 'Mana' is a tribe or even a sub-tribe, it is not permissible to say that it is not a recognized Scheduled Tribe in Entry No.18 of the Order. The Scrutiny Committee has failed to understand such effect of overruling the decision in Dina's case."::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 :::
8 wp5419.13.odt In view of the Constitution Bench decision in Milind's case, we hold that it is not permissible to invoke the affinity test to exclude certain 'Mana' communities from the recognized Scheduled Tribe.
9. On the aspect of inclusion of 'Mana' communities in the lists of Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes, we have relied upon the decision of this Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513, which is confirmed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98. We have held in paras 13 and 14 of Gajanan's case as under :
"13. ... This view has been confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98, and it is specifically held that 'Mana' is a separate Scheduled Tribe by itself included in Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order and it is not a sub-tribe of 'Gond'."
"14. This Court has held and it is confirmed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions that even if it is assumed that there was a separate entity, which is ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 9 wp5419.13.odt called as 'Mana' in Vidarbha Region, which has no affinity with 'Gond' tribe, that community would also fall within the scope of the Scheduled Tribes Order by virtue of the Amendment Act, 1976, and the State Government was not entitled to issue orders or circulars or resolutions contrary thereto. It holds that since under Entry 18, 'Manas' are specifically included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Maharashtra, 'Manas' throughout the State must be deemed to be Scheduled Tribe by reason of provisions of the Scheduled Tribes Order. Once 'Manas' throughout the State are entitled to be treated as a Scheduled Tribe by reason of the Scheduled Tribes Order as it now stands, it is not open to the State Government to say otherwise, as it has purported to do in various Government Resolutions. It further holds that it is not open to the State Government or, indeed to this Court to embark upon an enquiry to determine whether a section of 'Manas' was excluded from the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes Order."
The Apex Court has held that 'Mana' is a separate Scheduled Tribe in Entry No.18 and it is not a sub-tribe of 'Gond'. The Division Bench of this Court has held that it is not open to the State Government or indeed to this Court to embark upon an enquiry to determine whether a section of 'Manas' was excluded from the benefit ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 10 wp5419.13.odt of Scheduled Tribes Order. In para 15 of Gajanan's case, we have held that the Committee was clearly in error in holding that 'Mana' community was included in the list of Other Backward Classes and later on in the list of Special Backward Classes, and though the petitioner has established that he belongs to 'Mana' community, it is not established that he belongs to 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
10. On the aspect of carving out a distinction that the documents of pre-Independence, produced on record, simply indicating the caste as 'Mana' and not 'Mana Scheduled Tribe', we have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2004(9) SCALE 316. We have held in para 18 of Gajanan's case as under :
"18. Applying the law laid down in E.V.
Chinnaiah's case, it has to be held in the facts of the present that once it is clear that 'Mana' community is included in entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, it has to be read as it is, representing a class of 'Mana' as a whole and it is not permissible either for the Executive or for the Scrutiny Committee to artificially sub- divide or sub-classify 'Mana' community as one having different groups, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 11 wp5419.13.odt 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani/Mane', etc., for the purposes of grant of benefits available to a recognized Scheduled Tribe. To exclude such persons from the entry 'Mana', to be recognized as Scheduled Tribe, amounts to interference, re- arrangement, re-grouping or re-classifying the caste 'Mana', found in the Presidential Order and would be violative not only of Article 342, but also of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification of entry 'Mana" in different categories, like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Maratha Mana', 'Gond Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for the purpose of conferring a status as a recognized Scheduled Tribe is artificial and without any authority. The Committee has, therefore, committed an error in rejecting the claim by holding that the documents produced simply indicate the caste 'Mana' and not 'Mana, Scheduled Tribe'."
We have held that after following the decision in E.V.
Chinnaiah's case that 'Mana' community throughout the State is a class as a whole and to artificially explain or sub-divide it to exclude different groups like 'Badwaik Mana', 'Khand Mana', 'Kshatriya Mana', 'Kunbi Mana', 'Mani'/'Mane', etc., for denying benefits of recognized Scheduled Tribe is not only without any authority but violative of Articles 14 and 342 of the Constitution of India. We have held that the ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 12 wp5419.13.odt Committee was in error in rejecting the claim by holding that the documents produced simply indicate the caste 'Mana' and not 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
11. In para 19 of the said decision, we have held that the concept of recognized Scheduled Tribe for the purposes of giving benefits and concessions was not prevailing prior to 1950 and, therefore, only caste or community to which a person belonged was stated in the birth, school and revenue records maintained. We have also held that the documents are issued in the printed format, which contains a column under the heading 'Caste' and there is no column of tribe. We have held that irrespective of the fact that it is a tribe, the name of tribe is shown in the column of caste, and while entering such name 'Mana", the distinction between the caste and the tribe is ignored.
12. On the aspect of primacy of documents over the affinity test, we have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, and applied the broad parameters laid down therein. We have held that in view of the said ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:55 ::: 13 wp5419.13.odt decision of the Apex Court that the affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as the sole criteria to reject a claim.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law and the fact that the Committee has recorded the finding in para 15 that the caste of the petitioner and his forefathers is consistently recorded as 'Mana' in the school and revenue records for the period from 1921-22 to 1990, in our view, the Committee was in error in rejecting the documents by applying the affinity test. There is not even a single document produced on record showing the caste other than 'Mana'. We cannot, therefore, sustain the finding of the Committee rejecting the claim of petitioner for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe category by applying affinity test.
14. On 8.11.2017, we had passed an order directing the Committee to produce the entire record of Validity certificates dt.13.3.2008 and 6.9.2010 issued in the name of Prakash and Ghansham, the real brothers of petitioner. We have perused the record produced before us and we find that, after considering the documents having probative value, the Committee thought that it is not the case ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:56 ::: 14 wp5419.13.odt where the claim is doubtful and therefore, an inquiry through the Police Vigilance Cell, as contemplated by Rule 12 of Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 was dispensed with. The Committee having held that the real brothers of petitioner have established their claim for 'Mana' Scheduled tribe category, in our view, the Committee was in serious error, in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
15. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.
(a) The order dt.11.6.2013 passed by the Committee/respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(b) It is declared that the petitioner has established his claim for 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, which is an entry at Sr. No.18 in the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950.
(c) The Caste Certificate dated 18.8.2004 produced by the petitioner is held to be valid.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:56 :::
15 wp5419.13.odt
(d) The Committee, is therefore, directed accordingly
to issue Caste Validity Certificate in the name of petitioner.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:56 :::
16 wp5419.13.odt
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:05:56 :::