Bombay High Court
Ku.Rakhi D/O Gaurishankarsingh ... vs The State Of Mah.And Another on 5 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3343 OF 2005.
PETITIONER: Ku.Rakhi d/o Gaurishankarsingh
Chauhan, aged about 22 years, Student,
r/o Main Road, Katol, Tq.Katol, Distt.
Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumai -32.
2. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of Tribe Claims, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
through its Deputy Director and Member
Secretary.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.Sameer V.Sohoni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.M.M.Ekre, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
AND P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE: 5th MAY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Advocate Shri Sameer Sohoni for petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. The caste claim of petitioner as belonging to "Thakur"-
Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated on 11th of August, 2004.
That judgment is questioned before this Court. This Court has
directed parties to maintain status quo on 27th of September, 2005
and that order continues to operate even today.
3. Advocate Shri Sohoni at the threshold sought
adjournment pointing out that petitioner who is a student, aged
about 22 years, has not contacted his office after the matter came
to be admitted for final hearing. We have rejected his request.
4. Learned counsel points out that there are old documents
which record caste as "Thakur" and after receipt of vigilance cell
report, appropriate explanation is also furnished by the father of
petitioner on 15th of March, 2004. That explanation has been
overlooked. He states that merely by applying affinity test, caste
claim could not have been invalidated. He is relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Katole ..vs..
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims
reported at 2011(6) Mh.L.J.(SC) 919.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other
hand, points out that vigilance authorities found that in case of
father of petitioner, in municipal records, caste was recorded as
"Kshatriya". Similarly, in case of maternal uncle of petitioner caste
was recorded as 'Rajput'. He argues that this mention of caste has
not been explained by petitioner or her father. As caste "Thakur"
is an upper caste, the Scrutiny Committee is left with no option but
to find out affinity and after affinity test, it has been held that
petitioner does not belong to "Thakur" - Scheduled Tribe. He also
argues that judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand
Katole ..vs.. Committee For Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal
Claims (supra) does not stipulate that affinity test cannot be
applied.
6. Petitioner relied upon the old document of her paternal
uncle dated 1st of March, 1943 where caste has been mentioned as
"Thakur". Scrutiny Committee has perused that document. It has
taken note of the fact that vigilance squad obtained school
admission register extract from Headmistress, Municipal Council
Primary School No.2, Katol and in it caste of father of petitioner is
recorded as "Kshatriya". After receipt of vigilance report petitioner
was given due opportunity and father of petitioner has submitted
that his parents may have wrongly declared the caste while
admitting him in the school. While explaining 'Rajput' entry in
school leaving certificate of his brother-in-law, father of petitioner
has expressed inability to furnish any explanation. It appears that
he wanted to urge that his marriage was inter-caste marriage.
7. In view of this clinching material on record, the Scrutiny
Committee has discarded documentary evidence produced by
petitioner. That documentary evidence only shows caste as
"Thakur". Documents therefore are not decisive to hold that
petitioner or then persons mentioned in those certificates belong
to "Thakur" - Scheduled Tribe.
8. Scrutiny Committee has also applied affinity test and
thereafter concluded that petitioner does not belong to "Thakur" -
Scheduled Tribe. Use of affinity test or its validity is not in
dispute. Effort of petitioner is to demonstrate that in the light of
documents, affinity test could not have been resorted to.
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Katole
(supra) does not support this argument. When particular caste is
an upper caste and caste of same nomenclature is also recognized
as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny Committed
has to apply affinity test to find out the correct position. It is
cumulative result of appreciation of documents and such affinity
test which enables it to reach a particular conclusion. Here, in the
light of documents which show that petitioner belongs to upper
caste "Thakur" and affinity test, we do not find any case is made
out warranting interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Writ
Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE.
chute
