Bombay High Court
Amey S/O. Dilip Sonkusare ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 20 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/5 2004wp742.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 742 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Amey S/o Dilip Sonkusare, aged about 17
years, (Minor), through Guardian father
Dilip Baburao Sonkusare, aged about 51
years, Occ. Service, Resident of Plot No.51,
Khankhoje Nagar, Manewada Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-
ig 1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
Through its Member.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Umrer, District
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N.C.Phadnis, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K.Bangadkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2/5 2004wp742.16-Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee, dated 23/12/2015 upholding
the order of the Competent Authority refusing to issue a caste certificate
in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claims to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe
and hence, he applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Umrer for
issuance of the caste certificate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by the
order, dated 14/09/2015, rejected the application of the petitioner. The
said order was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No.1-
Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee upheld the order of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Competent Authority and dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order of
the Scrutiny Committee in the instant petition.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned order is palpably erroneous and the same is liable to be set
aside. It is stated that the Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction
to consider whether the petitioner really belongs to Halba Scheduled
Tribe while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, refusing to grant the caste certificate
in favour of the petitioner as elaborate enquiry in caste claim of a
person is not contemplated while considering the issue of grant of the
3/5 2004wp742.16-Judgment
caste certificate. It is stated that the Competent Authority and the
Scrutiny Committee ought to have only considered whether the
petitioner was a permanent resident of the locality over which the
respondent-Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the caste
certificate and whether the necessary documents were tendered by the
petitioner while seeking the caste certificate. It is submitted that instead
of considering the aforesaid aspects, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and
the Scrutiny Committee made a roving enquiry in the matter of the
caste claim of the petitioner to hold that the petitioner was not entitled
to a caste certificate of Halba Scheduled Tribe, as in certain old
documents of the Pre-Independence Era the caste of the near relatives
of the petitioner was recorded as "Koshti". It is stated that in the
circumstances of the case, the orders are liable to be set aside and a
direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue a caste certificate in
favour of the petitioner is necessary.
5. Shri Bangadkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, referred to some old documents
pertaining to the father of the petitioner where the caste of the
petitioner's father was recorded as "Koshti". It is stated that the said
document is an old document of the year 1940 and hence, by relying on
the same, the Competent Authority as well as the Scrutiny Committee
had refused to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is
4/5 2004wp742.16-Judgment
stated that in the old document of the year 1940, the caste of the father
of the petitioner is recorded as "Koshti" and subsequently the word
"Halba" appears to have been written.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Scrutiny Committee did not
have jurisdiction to make a roving enquiry in the matter of the caste
claim of the petitioner while considering the issue whether a caste
certificate could be granted in favour of the petitioner or not. This
Court has held in the judgment reported in 2015 (2) Mh.L.J. 707
(Namdeo s/o Baburao Ingale and others v. Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others) that the
Competent Authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer in that case did not
have jurisdiction to verify the claim for issuance of the caste certificate.
It was observed by this Court in the said reported judgment that the
Competent Authority would only be required to consider whether the
minimum requirement is made out for issuance of the caste certificate.
It appears that the Competent Authority as well as the Scrutiny
Committee exceeded their jurisdiction in declining to grant a caste
certificate in favour of the petitioner. It would be necessary for the
Competent Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate to reconsider the
application made by the petitioner and grant a caste certificate in his
favour, if the Competent Authority is satisfied that the petitioner is a
5/5 2004wp742.16-Judgment
resident of Umrer and the minimum requisite documents are produced
by the petitioner for grant of caste certificate. If the caste certificate is
tendered by the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, a
roving enquiry could be made by the Committee in the matter of the
validity of the caste claim.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
respondent/Sub-Divisional Magistrate should decide the application of
the petitioner for grant of a caste certificate within a period of four
weeks, in accordance with law and grant the caste certificate to the
petitioner, if the minimum requirements are satisfied. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
