Manish S/O Bansidhar Panchgam vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1589 Bom

                                                                 wp5119.16


                                      1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                        Writ Petition No. 5119 of 2016


 Manish son of Bansidhar Panchgam,
 aged about 48 years,
 occupation - service,
 resident of Amar Bhagatsing Chowk,
 Frezarpura,
 Amravati.                          .....                   Petitioner.


                                   Versus


 1.      State of Maharashtra,
         through its Secretary,
         Tribal Welfare Department,
         Mantralaya,
         Mumbai-400 032.

 2.      Committee for Scrutiny &
         Verification of Tribe Claims,
         Amravati Division,
         Amravati, through its
         Deputy Director [R] and
         Member-Secretary,
         having its office at
         Amravati.


 3.      Chief Executive Officer,
         Zilla Parishad,
         Amravati.                             ....      Respondents.


                                 *****
 Mr. G. G. Mishra, Adv., for the petitioner.




::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 00:59:49 :::
                                                                       wp5119.16


                                        2



 Mr. Lokhande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

 Mr. Thakre, Adv., holding for Mr. Shrikant Saoji, Adv., for
 respondent no.3.

                                       *****



                               CORAM    :      B. R. GAVAI AND
                                               A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

Date : 10th April, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:

01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

02. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by

the order dated 30th April, 2016 passed by the respondent no.2,

thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner of belonging to

"Mannewar" - Scheduled Tribe.

03. The petitioner was granted a Caste Certificate dated 12th

July, 1991 by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati, certifying him to be

"Mannewar" - Scheduled Tribe. Since the petitioner was working in the

Office of Chief Accounts & Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, his

wp5119.16

Caste Certificate came to be sent to the respondent no.2 - Scrutiny

Committee for verification of the same. It appears that on earlier

occasion, the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated by

order dated 6th June, 2005 and as such the matter came to be again

remanded to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee again

on remand by the impugned order has rejected the claim of the

petitioner.

04. One of the grounds on which the claim of the petitioner has

been invalidated is that in some of the documents on which the

petitioner relies, his caste is mentioned as "Manewar" and that

"Manewar" and "Mannewar" are two different tribes. It has been

observed that in Maharashtra State, "Mannewar" is a Scheduled Tribe

and not"Manewar". It has been held that the caste or tribe as is

mentioned in the Presidential Order has to be read as it is. Second

ground on which the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the

petitioner is that though the petitioner's father worked in Maharashtra

State Electricity Board, he has not availed of the benefits and as such

the petitioner's claim was not genuine. Third ground on which the

claim of the petitioner is rejected is that some of the documents show

that the petitioner's caste is "Telgu". Fourth ground for rejection of

claim is that the petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test.

wp5119.16

05. The perusal of the documents placed on record would show

that the pre-constitutional documents of the petitioner's forefathers

show his tribe as either "Manewar" or "Mannewar. As a matter of fact,

the document of 1927 shows the petitioner's caste as "Mannewar."

The Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Petitions, being Writ

Petition No. 757 of 2012 and other companion matters; decided on

10th August, 2010, has held that in vernacular language, "Manewar"

and "Mannewar" cannot be different. It has further been held that

merely because the "Mannewar" can be pronounced in somewhat

different pronounciation in vernacular language , it cannot be a ground

to deny the benefits to the candidate, when, on the basis of pre-

constitutional documents, the candidate is entitled to get the benefits.

07. In so far as the reasons given by the Committee that the

documents pertaining to some of the relatives show the caste to be

"Telgu" or "Telangi" are concerned, it is a common knowledge that

"Telgu" or "Telangi" refers to region, which was a part of Andhra

Pradesh and now a separate State.

08. In so far as the affinity test is concerned, the Apex Court in

the case of Anand Katole Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

wp5119.16

Scrutiny Committee [2011 (6) Mh. L.J. 919] has held that pre-

constitutional documents will have to be given a greater probative

value than the affinity test.

09. In that view of the matter, we find that in view of a

document as old as of 1927, the claim of the petitioner will have to be

considered to be valid one. Merely because the petitioner's father did

not avail of the benefits cannot be a ground to deny the the same to

the petitioner.

10. Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [a]. The

Caste Validity Certificate be issued within a period of two weeks from

today.

           Judge                                                Judge
                               -0-0-0-0-



 |hedau|