Sangeeta Motilal Venkeshwar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 161 Bom

                                         {1}
                                                                  wp 1091.15.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                        
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.1091 OF 2015




                                                
     Sangeeta D/o Motilal Venkeshwar
     Age: 40 years, occu: household
     R/o House No.59, Opp. Natraj Hotel,




                                               
     Railway Station, Aurangabad
     Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad                                            Petitioner


              Versus




                                     
     Scheduled Tribe Certificate
                             
     Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
     through Its Member Secretary                                 Respondents

Mr.M.S.Deshmukh advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Dande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent _______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ

Dated : 29th FEBRUARY, 2016.

     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: R.M. Borde, J)





     1        Heard.


     2        Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

     for final decision at admission stage.





                                                  {2}
                                                                           wp 1091.15.odt

     3        The petitioner claims to belong to Manerwarlu, Scheduled




                                                                                 

Tribe (ST). The tribe certificate issued in favour of the petitioner

on 24.7.1991 was referred to the scrutiny committee for

verification. The scrutiny committee, in observance of the

procedure, prescribed under law and after considering the report

of Vigilance Cell, as well as on consideration of the issue of affinity

of the petitioner with the concerned tribe and on perusal of the

documentary evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion

that, the petitioner has failed to substantiate her claim as

belonging to Manerwarlu, ST and as such, by order dated

12.6.2003 directed invalidation of the tribe certificate issued in

favour of the petitioner.

4 One of the reasons quoted in the order, directing

invalidation of the tribe certificate is, with reference to certain

documents listed at Sr. Nos.2, 3 and 9 which pertain to the

candidate and her sister, wherein their caste is recorded as

Manerwarlu. The committee has observed that, those documents

are of recent origin i.e. of the years 1986, 1979 and as such,

cannot form the basis for issuing validation certificate. The

petitioner claims that, after demise of her mother, she could find

out an old document in the form of a mortgage deed, registered

at the office of Sub Registrar, Parbhani pertaining to the year

{3} wp 1091.15.odt

1356 fasli i.e. equivalent to year 1947. According to the

petitioner, at Sr.No.32 of the document, name of her grandfather

is recorded as Kahnayalal Chadariyya and his caste is recorded as

Manerwaralu. The petitioner contends that, the said document

being old one i.e. pertaining to the period prior to Constitutional

Order, is relevant for consideration of claim of the petitioner. The

petitioner approached to the Scrutiny Committee seeking review

of the order. However, the committee refused to entertain the

review application on the ground that, it is not within the powers

of the committee to entertain the review application.

5 On perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

and on consideration of the additional document placed on record

by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that, fresh enquiry needs

to be conducted in the matter, as regards the claim of the

petitioner. Although the petitioner is not in employment or is not

pursuing studies, since the issue pertains to the status of an

individual and an individual needs validation certificate for variety

of purposes, the petitioner would be justified in insisting for

reconsideration of her claim on the basis of old document. The

committee would surely verify the old record through the

Vigilance Cell or any other mode, while conducting fresh enquiry.

{4} wp 1091.15.odt

6 For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed.

The order passed by the scrutiny committee, impugned in this

petition, directing invalidation of the tribe certificate issued to the

petitioner dated 12.6.2003, is quashed and set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the scrutiny committee for

reconsideration. The scrutiny committee shall reconsider the

matter in the light of observations made in the Judgment and

shall take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date

of order.

     7        Rule is accordingly made absolute.
      


     8        There shall be no order as to costs.
   





                (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J)                       (R.M.BORDE, J)





     vbd