Bombay High Court
Balaji S/O. Suda Lokhande vs Scheduled Tribes Certificate ... on 20 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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.
wp4505.15.odt
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
wp4505.15.odt
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
wp4505.15.odt
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
