Bombay High Court
Kum. Varsha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 December, 2010
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, Shrihari P. Davare
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.4560 OF 2007
Kum. Varsha d/o Mahadu Wagh,
age 22 years, occup. service,
r/of Hanuman Nagar, Sillod,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralya, Mumbai - 32.
2.
The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Verification Committee
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,
Kashmira Bhavan, Station Road,
through its Chairman/Director.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Sillod, Taluka Sillod,
District Aurangabad. Respondents
------
Shri Anil.S. Golegaonkar,Advocate,for petitioner.
Shri V.D. Rakh,Asstt. Govt.Pleader for Resp. No.1.
Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.
Coram:Naresh H. Patil & Shrihari P. Davare, JJ.
Judgment reserved on : November 23, 2010
Judgment pronounced on : December 01, 2010
Judgment (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.)
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of
parties and taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
02. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed that;
"A. To grant Rule and allow this petition.
(B). To quash and set aside the order of Committee dt.
17/3/2007 and declare that petitioner belongs to Malhar
Koli Scheduled Tribe, by issuing appropriate writ, order or
directives, as the case may be.
(C). To
ig quash and set aside impugned order of
Committee dt.17/3/2007 & remand matter to Committee,
and direct Committee to decide claim as per the guidelines
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kum. Madhuri Patil's
Case [AIR 1995 SC 94] and [{1997} (5) SCC 437], by
issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as the case
may be."
03. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe and contends that Respondent No.3-The Sub Divisional
Officer, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, has issued caste
certificate in her favour to that effect, on 31.5.2001 which is produced
at Exhibit B (page 32). The petitioner also contends that the said caste
certificate was referred to Respondent No.2-The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Verification Committee, for verification, in the year 2005-06.
Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said committee
conducted enquiry through vigilance cell which submitted its report on
25.8.2006. Thereafter, copy of the said report of the vigilance cell was
served upon the petitioner, by letter dated 22.11.2006, calling upon her
to put up her say/explanation to the said report within fifteen days.
Moreover, by letter dated 23.11.2006, Respondent No.2-Committee
issued another letter to the petitioner asking her to appear for oral
interview before the committee on 30.11.2006. Accordingly, oral
interview of the petitioner was conducted by the Respondent No.2-
committee on 30.11.2006 and thereafter the Committee passed an order
on 17.3.2007, and thereby rejected the social status claim of the
petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated
17.3.2007 passed by Respondent No.2-Committee, the petitioner has
filed present petition impugning the said order.
04. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the
petitioner canvassed that by letter dated 22.11.2006, report of the
vigilance cell dated 25.8.2006 was served upon the petitioner, giving
her two weeks time to submit her reply/explanation to the said report.
However, before she could collect the documents and submit her reply
to the report of the vigilance cell, another letter dated 23.11.2006 was
issued by Respondent No.2-Committee to the petitioner calling up her to
appear for personal hearing before the said committee, on 30.11.2006.
Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the said committee on that day,
but on account of insufficient time granted, she could not collect
relevant documents to reply the contra points raised in the said report
of the vigilance cell. The petitioner contens that Respondent No.2-
Committe did not give her adequate and reasonable time of two weeks
which was mentioned in letter dated 22.11.2006 and, therefore, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving
sufficient time to file reply, she was called upon to appear before the
Committee for oral interview on 30.11.2006 i.e. just within seven days
from the date of despatch of the said letter which appears to be
material deviation on the part of the Scrutiny Committee and thus
affects its entire decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
canvassed that Respondent No.2-Committee failed to follow the
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 12 [5] and
[6] in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, AIR
1995 SC 96, and hence, urged that the impugned order dated
17.3.2007 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back
to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for conducting hearing afresh,
after mandatory compliance and after giving due opportunity to the
petitioner, as required by law.
05. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that
Respondent No.2-Committee has issued validity certificate on
29.12.2009 to petitioner's blood relatives, more particularly to Ganesh
Govindrao, who is her cousin, validating his caste claim as Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has also produced certificate of validity
of caste, genealogy and affidavit of said Ganesh Wagh at Exhibit H-1.
Moreover, the petitioner has also submitted that Respondent No.2-
Committee has issued certificate validating caste Koli Malhar Scheduled
Tribe to her another cousin Anil Ramrao Wagh, on 5.6.2006, and the
copy of the said validity certificate, as also affidavit of Anil Wagh and
genealogy, have been produced by the petitioner at Exhibit C.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner
is also entitled to the certificate belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled
Tribe and, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 passed by
Respondent No.2-Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.
06.
Learned Counsel for Respondents opposed the present
petition vehemently, and submitted that Respondent No.2-Committee
has passed the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 after considering the
report of vigilance cell, as well as after considering home enquiry and
ethnic and affinity linkage of the petitioner, as enunciated in the case of
Madhuri Patil (supra) and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner
has failed to prove her affinity and ethnic linkage to Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe and also failed to produce any valuable proof or record
for the period prior to 1950 in support of her claim, and any validity
certificate of her blood relatives with necessary affidavits, with family
tree, and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe as claimed by her and accordingly, invalidated her said
caste claim, rightly.
07. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted
that after issuance of notice dated 22.11.2006 by Respondent No.2-
Committee, petitioner filed her reply immediately on 23/24.11.2006
and, therefore, there is no substance in her contention that two weeks
mandatory period was not given to her to submit her reply/explanation,
in view of issuance of letter dated 23.11.2006 calling upon her to appear
before the committee for oral interview on 30.11.2006. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the respondents urged that there is no substance in
the grievance made by the petitioner and hence, present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
08. Learned counsel for the respondents also canvassed that
the petitioner herself has produced xerox copy of service roll of her
father namely, Mahadu Pandurang Wagh which indicates his social
status as Koli and, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim
her social status as Koli Malhar, as the social status of her father as Koli
itself wipes out her claim as belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe.
09. We have perused the contents of the petition, its
annexures, as well as perused the file of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny
Committee in respect of petitioner's case, and also considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents and, at the outset, it is seen that Respondent No.2-
Committee had sent a letter dated 22.11.2006 to the petitioner and
thereby served the report of the vigilance cell dated 25.8.2006 upon the
petitioner and called on her to submit her reply/explanation thereon,
within a period of fifteen days. Moreover, it is also seen that in
pursuance of the letter dated 22.11.2006, the petitioner submitted her
reply on 23/24.11.2006 to Respondent No.2-Committee. Hence,
Respondent No.2-Committee issued letter on 23.11.2006 to the
Petitioner, calling upon her to appear before the committee for personal
hearing on 30.11.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner attended the said
hearing. Thus, it is amply clear that in pursuance of the letter dated
22.11.2006 of the Respondent No.2-Committee, the petitioner filed her
reply on 23/24.11.2006 to Respondent No.2-Committee, and in
response to further letter issued by respondent No.2-Committee on
23.11.2006, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the committee
for interview on 30.11.2006, she also attended the hearing on
30.11.2006 and hence, it is further amply clear that there is no
substance in the grievance made by the petitioner that she was not
given mandatory sufficient time of two weeks/fifteen days for
submission of her reply/explanation to the report of the vigilance cell.
Moreover, it is also crystal clear that the petitioner was given audience/
hearing on 30.11.2006 before passing the impugned order dated
17.3.2007 and, therefore, it is further clear that the principles of natural
justice were followed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee.
10. Besides, it is material to note that the social status of a
person flows from his father, and applying the said parameter in the
instant case, if we consider the document No.14 submitted by the
petitioner before Respondent No.2-Committee, i. e. the xerox copy of
service roll of her father, the same discloses his social status as Koli and
not Malhar Koli which clinches the issue in controversy and clarifies
that since the petitioner's father belongs to Koli and not Malhar Koli, the
social status of the petitioner is also required to be considered as Koli
and not Malhar Koli, and the observations made by Respondent No.2
-Committee in that respect in the impugned order dated 17.3.2007
cannot be faulted with. Moreover, it also appears that Respondent No.2-
Committee, while passing the impugned order dated 17.3.2007, has
considered the enquiry report of the vigilance cell, remarks of Research
Officer, Petitioner's say and information furnished by her and the points
put forth by her during the course of personal hearing and other factors,
such as, affinity and ethnic linkage of the petitioner towards Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner failed
to prove her affinity and ethnik linkage to Koli Malhar, as well as failed
to produce valuable proof or the material record for the period prior to
1950 and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Koli Malhar
Scheduled Tribe and the said finding also cannot be faulted with.
11. Thus, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it
appears that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated
17.3.2007 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee and the
petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere in the impugned
order and hence, we are of the considered view that no interference is
called for therein invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, present
petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. In the result, present petition, being devoid of any merits
and bearing no substance, stands dismissed.
ig In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged, accordingly.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.)
pnd/wp4560.07
