Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Duryodhan Ghule vs The Committee For Secutiny And ... on 3 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2526 OF 2005.
PETITIONER: Shri Gajanan s/o Duryodhan Ghule,
aged about 29 years, Occu: Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat, Golegaon (Khurd),
Tq.Jalgaon Jamod, Distt.Buldana.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of Tribe Claims, Amravati, Tq. and Distt.
Amravati.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department of Tribal
Development, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai -
400 032.
3. The Collector, Buldana, Tq. and Distt.
Buldana.
4. The Secretary,
Gram Panchayat Golegaon (Khurd),
Tq.Jalgaon Jamod, Distt.Buldana.
INTERVENORS: 1. Rambhau Namdeo Khirodkar,
aged Major, Occu: Agriculturist.
2. Rameshwar Devidas Pande,
aged Major, Occu: Agriculturist.
Both resident of Golegaon (Khurd),
Tq.Jalgaon Jamod, Distt.Buldana.
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:45:16 :::
2
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mrs.R.D.Raskar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.A.Lokhande, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
AND P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE: 3rd MAY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Advocate Smt.Raskar for petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3. Nobody
for intervenors.
2. Petitioner contested election as a person belonging to
Scheduled Tribe namely, "Mahadev Koli" and got elected. In due
course, his caste claim was invalidated. However, this Court has
stayed that invalidation. In the meanwhile, petitioner has
completed his tenure as Sarpanch.
3. Advocate Smt.Raskar submits that though tenure may
have expired, as caste itself has been found to be not "Mahadev
Koli", the grievance still survives. According to her, under
erroneous assumption that "Koli" and "Koli Mahadev" are separate
tribes, respondent no.1 - Scrutiny Committee has approached the
facts presented to it. Because of this defective approach there is
jurisdictional error. She is relying upon Division Bench Judgment
of this Court reported at 2003(4) ALL M.R. 621 (Mr.Yatin
Nilkanth Bastav ..vs.. Executive Magistrate and ors.) to urge that,
there Division Bench has specifically found that "Koli" is genus
while "Koli Mahadev" is specie. She submits that the Scrutiny
Committee ought to have kept in mind this feature and thereafter
proceeded to appreciate the documents. Old document of 1950
pertaining to great grand-father of petitioner has been discarded
only because it mentions caste as "Koli". She points out that all
other subsequent documents consistently mention caste as "Koli
Mahadev". She further states that though affinity is looked into, if
documents are unimpeachable, the affinity test is never decisive.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other
hand, submits that though tenure of petitioner as Sarpanch may
have expired, thereafter he got himself elected as candidate
belonging to very same scheduled tribe on more than one
occasion. He submits that Scrutiny Committee has specifically
recorded finding that "Koli" and "Koli Mahadev" are distinct castes.
According to her, even if "Koli" is presumed to be genus,
anthropological test applied by Scrutiny Committee demonstrates
that petitioner does not belong to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled
Tribe. In view of this material, the Division Bench judgment has
no application. He states that when old document of 1950 itself is
found not conclusive, later documents which militate with it or
then show the caste recorded as "Koli Mahadev", are not
determinative. According to him, in this situation, importance of
affinity test cannot be ruled out.
5. Perusal of Division Bench Judgment of this Court
mentioned supra reveals that there, after invalidation of caste
claim, the Division Bench has found that mere mention of case as
"Koli" in one of the old documents was not decisive to invalidate
the caste claim. Facts show that there were some other documents
in which caste was recorded as "Koli Mahadev" and a validity was
also given in terms of judgment and order dated 24 th of March,
1994 of High Court in Writ Petition No.1424 of 1994. In the light
of said validity and the other documents which revealed caste as
"Koli Mahadev", one document in which caste was recorded as
"Koli" has been found not to be sufficient. Thus, basically the
Division Bench has appreciated material presented to it and said
Division Bench does not lay down any general principle in this
respect.
6. However, in the present matter, the petitioner has
produced certain documents later in point of time, in which caste
of his relatives has recorded as "Koli Mahadev". The Committee
has, on more than one occasion, recorded a finding that "Koli" and
"Mahadev Koli" are distinct castes. It has also concluded that
petitioner has been taking advantage of same nomenclature found
in "Koli" caste and "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled Tribe. In view of
this conclusion, use of affinity test by Committee cannot be said to
be perverse.
7. In this situation, we dispose of Writ Petition with a
direction that the order of Scrutiny Committee dated 12 th of April,
2005 impugned before us by itself shall not be used to invalidate
caste claim of blood relatives of petitioner. If any such claim is
made by them, it shall be independently scrutinized by concerned
Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, (Act No.23 of 2001).
8. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Chute.
