Vineet S/O Dnyaneshwar ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 470 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chavan, J.

1. This petition by a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, takes exception to the order passed on 17-10-2002 by respondent No. 3 - Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Scheduled Tribe Claims invalidating the petitioner's claim to belong to Halbi (Scheduled Tribe).

2. The submissions and contentions of the petitioner in brief are as follows:

(a) He belongs to Halbi (Scheduled Tribe) and is a permanent resident of Achalpur, District Amravati.

(b) While studying in Xlth Standard, he submitted the relevant documents for scrutiny of his caste claim. These documents were duly received by respondent No. 3 on 27-11-2000.

(c) The Committee, however, did not give the petitioner any hearing requiring the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1585 of 2002 seeking a direction to the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period. By order dated 3-5-2002, this Court directed the Committee to decide the petitioner's caste claim within two months.

(d) The Committee sought extension of time and eventually, by the impugned order dated 17-10-2002, invalidated the petitioner's caste claim.

(e) The Committee ignored the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his caste claim and relied on the documents in respect of persons whose caste was not relevant for deciding the petitioner's caste claim.

(f) The Vigilance Cell did not conduct proper home enquiry.

(g) The Committee picked up certain parts from statement of petitioner's father out of context, and came to wrong conclusions.

(h) The Committee acted upon "pre-determinate view" of the matter and the Committee's conclusions are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Upon notice to the respondents, respondent No. 3 filed preliminary submissions on 18-2-2003. After hearing the parties on 17-6-2003, the petition was admitted. Respondent No. 3 has filed a return, opposing the prayers in the petition, on 26-3-2007.

4. This Court heard the petition for admission on 17-6-2003 and granted ad interim relief staying the decision of the Scrutiny Committee in terms of prayer Clause (b) of the petition. This relief was confirmed by order dated 4-11-2003 after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties. The situation, viz., that the petitioner was not issued degree certificate on account of his failure to submit the caste validity certificate, remained unaffected. He, therefore, filed Civil Application No. 3916 of 2006 and prayed for direction for issuance of degree certificate. This Court, by order dated 6-7-2006, declined to grant the said prayer.

5. The petitioner had approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1763 of 2007 against the order passed by this Court on 6-7-2006 aforesaid, and the Apex Court, by its order dated 6-2-2007, had requested this Court to dispose of the petition within three months.

6. The preliminary submissions of respondent No. 3, as elaborated in the return, show that respondent No. 3 had given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to meet the conclusions drawn in the Police Vigilance Cell Report and the material sought to be relied on to negate the petitioner's caste claim. According to the Committee, pre 1950 documents, which the petitioner claimed to have submitted, were in fact not at all produced before the Committee. The Committee found upon enquiry with the Municipal Council that certain birth entries on which the petitioner sought to place reliance, did not at all exist. Respondent No. 3 Committee, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. We have heard Shri N.R. Pathrabe, the learned Advocate for the petitioner; Shri S.S. Doifode, the learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4; and Shri N.W. Sambre, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 Committee. We have also perused the original record of the proceedings before the Committee.

8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the school leaving certificates of petitioner's father Dnyaneshwar bearing the date 2-6-1969, grandfather Narayan of the year 1928, but duplicate whereof was issued on 1-8-1981, great grandfather Vithu of the year 1906, but duplicate whereof was issued on 3-6-1982, all show that these persons belonged to Halbi, which has been included in Scheduled Tribe. The learned Advocate submitted that these pre-independence documents have high probative value, since there would be no reason for indicating caste as Halbi at the time when there was no question of any benefits being attached to such caste. These documents are referred to at serial Nos. 3, 5 and 6 in para 3 of the Committee's order. Thus, it cannot be said that the documents were not produced by the petitioner. In respect of document of petitioner's father, referred to at serial No. 3, the Committee observes in sub para (A) of para 14 that this document is of a recent period and, therefore, could not be relied upon for deciding the caste claim. As regards documents at serial Nos. 5 and 6, i.e. the school leaving certificates in respect of petitioner's grandfather and great grandfather, the Committee has observed in sub-para (B) of para 14 as under:

The document quoted at Sr. No. 5 and 6 are school records in respect of grand father of the candidate. Though these documents show the entries as Halbi, now in view of Vigilance Cell Report it has been proved that these entries are not of Halbi, Scheduled Tribe. In view of the affinity test, above documents are rejected.

The Vigilance Cell Reports at Annexures Q and Z to the petition do not show that the Vigilance Cell had conducted any enquiry in respect of these documents. Therefore, it was not clear to us as to how the Committee could make such observations in sub-para (B) of para 14. The Committee seems to have mixed up its inferences on the basis of affinity test with the reliability of the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner.

9. The report of the Vigilance Cell, on which the Committee placed reliance, mentions that information was collected from Dnyaneshwar Narayan Panchabhaiyye. This report at Annexure Q has been analyzed by the Committee in para 6 of its order. While petitioner's father is seen to have stated at annexure Q that the original dialect of the tribe was Halbi, the Committee has mentioned in Clause (e) of para 6 that the petitioner's father stated his mothertongue to be Marathi. Annexure Q shows that the petitioner's father had stated important festivals to be "Tritiya, Hareli and Pola", whereas the Committee mentions in Clause (g) of para 6 that the main festivals of the community stated by the petitioner's father were Diwali, Dassera and Pola. It would thus be seen that the Committee had not read the report of the Vigilance Cell and the statement of petitioner's father Dnyaneshwar properly while drawing conclusions.

10. The report at Annexure Q refers to absence of entries of birth of Yogeshwar Narayan Panchabhaiyye and Dnyaneshwar Narayan Panchabhaiyye in the Municipal birth register and relies on the letters of the Registrar of Births and Deaths issued on 18-6-2002. We have perused those letters in original from the Committee's record. Copies thereof have been placed along with the return of respondent No. 3 at Annexure R-1. They show that the birth of Yogeshwar Narayan Panchabhaiyye on 20-10-1950 and Dnyaneshwar Narayan Panchabhaiyye on 30-6-1953 is not recorded in the Municipal register. The birth certificate of Yogeshwar dated 16-10-1950, which is at Annexure-S, shows that Yogeshwar was born on 16-10-1950. The entry in respect of birth of son of Narayan on 21-10-1953 is at Annexure T. The school leaving certificate of Dnyaneshwar, Annexure E, on which the petitioner had placed reliance, shows the date of birth of Dnyaneshwar to be 30-6-1953 and not 21-10-1953, as is referred to in Annexure-T. It was necessary for the petitioner to explain this discrepancy in the date of birth and, therefore, the Committee cannot be faulted for making an enquiry with the Municipal Council about birth of a male child to Narayan on 30-6-1953 and concluding that the petitioner had produced unreliable record, because the birth-date did not tally. Even so, in view of the discrepancies in the observations of the Committee in paras 6(e) and 14(B) of its order, it is clear that the Committee had not scrutinized the documents and the reports of the Police Vigilance Cell with the solemnity, which is required bearing in mind the serious consequences which ensue upon invalidation of the caste claim.

11. In this view of the matter, we hold that the order passed by the Committee suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the Committee has ignored two pre-independence school leaving certificates showing the caste of the petitioner's ancestors to be Halbi, by giving a wrong reason in para 14(B) of its order, and reading into statement of petitioner's father, what petitioner's father had not stated, about mothertongue being Marathi and the festivals of the community being Diwali, Dassera and Pola. It would be necessary for the Committee to consider the caste claim of the petitioner afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of explaining the discrepancy in respect of date of birth of petitioner's father : as to whether it is 21-10-1953 or 30-6-1953 and such other evidence as the petitioner may desire to tender.

12. All these observations do not mean that petitioner's burden to prove his tribe claim according to law is in any manner lessened. All that we have found is erroneous appreciation of facts and evidence by the Committee and consequent erroneous decision.

13. In view of this, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17-10-2002 invalidating the petitioner's caste claim and direct the Committee to decide the claim afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to tender such evidence as he may choose and by following the principles of natural justice. All questions arising therein are kept open and the Committee shall decide the claim according to law. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 4-6-2007 at 11 a.m. and on such further dates as the Committee may require.

14. Rule is made absolute in terms of para 13 above. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as be costs.