Bombay High Court
Sau Pushpalata Vasantrao ... vs State Of Mah & Others on 31 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2687.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2687/2005
PETITIONER: Sau. Pushpalata Vasantrao Chunkikar
alias Pushpalata Panjabrao Gunde
aged 31 years, Occupation : Social Worker,
resident of Bhatkuli, Tal. Bhatkuli, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati through its
Deputy Director (R) and Member - Secretary
having its office at Amravati.
3. Additional Collector, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
4. Grampanchayat, Bhatkuli, Distt. Amravati.
5. Executive Magistrate, Daryapur, Distt. Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 31.08.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the Scrutiny Committee, dated 30.8.2004 invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe.
wp2687.05.odt
The petitioner claimed to belong to 'Koli Mahadeo'
Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the
Scrutiny Committee at Amravati for verification. The petitioner produced
a number of documents before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee conducted a vigilance enquiry in the caste claim of the
petitioner and by the impugned order, dated 30.8.2004 invalidated the
caste claim.
Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting the
caste claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee
has given undue weightage to the affinity test. It is stated that the
Scrutiny Committee has unnecessarily placed great reliance on the
statements of the father of the petitioner, as recorded by the vigilance
cell, to hold that the petitioner had not proved his affinity to 'Koli
Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that undue weightage is given by
the Scrutiny Committee to the documents unearthed by the vigilance cell
in respect of the father of the petitioner and the paternal uncle of the
petitioner, dated 1.7.1945 and 1.7.1952 respectively. It is submitted that
several documents were tendered by the petitioner before the Scrutiny
Committee that would demonstrate that the petitioner belongs to 'Koli
Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe.
wp2687.05.odt
Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 supported the order of
the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that the petitioner had relied on
comparatively recent documents as against the old documents of the
pre-independence era, that were unearthed by the Scrutiny Committee. It
is submitted that the petitioner had not tendered the copies of the
primary school record in respect of the father and the paternal uncle of
the petitioner. It is submitted that in the vigilance enquiry, the officers
found that in the primary school record of the petitioner's father the caste
was recorded as 'Koli' on 1.7.1945. It is stated that in respect of
Shri Maroti Bunde, the real paternal uncle of the petitioner, the caste was
recorded as 'Koli' in the primary school record on 1.7.1952. It is stated
that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly relied on the old documents,
which have a greater probative value than the comparatively recent
documents, that were tendered by the petitioner. It is stated that the
petitioner has also failed to prove his affinity to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled
Tribe. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has scanned each of the
documents that was tendered by the petitioner before invalidating the
caste claim of the petitioner.
wp2687.05.odt
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, we find that the Scrutiny
Committee was justified in invalidating the claim of the petitioner of
belonging to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. We find that a proper
vigilance enquiry was conducted in the matter of the caste claim of the
petitioner and the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to reply to
the show-cause-notice, that was served on the petitioner before her caste
claim was decided. For substantiating her claim, the petitioner had relied
on comparatively recent documents of the years 1980s and 1990s. As
against the said documents, the vigilance cell had found out two
documents of the year 1945 and 1952 i.e. school record of the father and
the paternal uncle of the petitioner that showed that the caste of the
petitioner's father and real uncle was recorded as 'Koli' as early as in the
years 1945 and 1952. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent -
Scrutiny Committee that these old documents have greater probative
value and hence, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly relied on the same
while discarding the comparatively recent documents of the years 1980s
and 1990s. We find that in certain documents that were produced by the
petitioner herself, i.e., document no.15 the caste of the near relative of
the petitioner was recorded as 'Koli'. In support of her caste claim, the
petitioner had erroneously relied on some orders of the Scrutiny
wp2687.05.odt
Committee in the caste claim of her father-in-law, which she could not
have done. The Scrutiny Committee has observed, after giving ample
opportunity to the petitioner, that the petitioner had failed to show her
affinity to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee, on
an appreciation of the material on record, has invalidated the tribe claim
of the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Scrutiny
Committee so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp2687.05.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 : 02/09/2016
ig
