Bombay High Court
Mohit Suresh Deore vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 11 April, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
dgm 1 903-wp-3190-10.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3190 OF 2010
Mohit s/o. Suresh Deore .... Petitioner
vs
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2 The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims, Nasik
Division, Nasik
3 Maharashtra State Electricity Co Ltd.,
through its Chief General Manager, (T/E),
G-9, Prakashgad, 4th floor, Station Road,
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 .... Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Mr. C.K. Bhangoji for the petitioner.
Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for respondents 1 and 2.
Mr. Avinash A. Chavan, Senior Research Officer, Nasik present.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ.
DATE : April 11, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the
parties.
2 The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:50:57 :::
dgm 2 903-wp-3190-10.sxw
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division,
Nashik - Respondent No.2, (The Committee) dated 2 nd January 2009
as his caste claim belonging to Thakur (Scheduled Tribe) has been
rejected.
3 This is one of those cases where, though the Petitioner's
father, brother, two sisters and uncle already possess the validity
certificate of the caste in question i.e. Thakur (Scheduled Tribe), yet
the Committee, by overlooking those documents and supporting
materials placed on record, has rejected the claim. The reasons and
findings so arrived at by the Committee, on various aspects, as are
contrary to the settled position of law and the record. The doubts
and/or rejection on the foundation of improper affinity test and other
material, in no way, sufficient to prevail over the paternal relative's
validity certificates and supporting material on record. The findings,
therefore, so arrived at, in our view, is unsustainable. We are inclined
to conclude this order, as the law in this regard is settled by the
Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the various judgments.
4 In view of judgment dated 10.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.
2/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:50:57 :::
dgm 3 903-wp-3190-10.sxw
28/2016-Kum. Ashwini Vilas Chavan v. State of Maharashtra & ors.
(Anoop V. Mohta & Ravindra V. Ghuge, JJ.), after referring to various
Supreme Court and High Court judgments by giving importance to the
paternal side caste certificates, we have ordered to grant the caste
certificate of validity accordingly on the foundation of facts and the
law, but on same line, hence order accordingly.
5 Strikingly, the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation
of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules 2003 (The Rules)
provide the definition of "relative" [2 (1) (f)] means a blood relative
from paternal side of the applicant. The Applicant is one, who apply
for such Validity Certificate.
6 The Rules prescribed the procedure for obtaining the
verification of certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. As per which,
Rule 11(2)(d) provides that apart from the documents so prescribed,
other documents include [(d)(iii)] affidavits of the near relatives
whose Validity Certificates are submitted in support of the Scheduled
Tribe claim of the Applicant. The Scrutiny Committee, thereafter, as
per Rule 12, scrutinizes and verify the information and documents
3/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:50:57 :::
dgm 4 903-wp-3190-10.sxw
furnished by such Applicant. It is only in case, where the Committee
is not satisfied, such application required to be sent to the Vigilance
Cell for inquiry procedure is also contemplated. The requirement of
opportunity is also provided in case of further doubts and/or issues.
The aspect, therefore, which is important for the purpose of taking
decision in the present matter, where the paternal side relatives' caste
certificates are on record and in view of the judgment so referred
above, the Scrutiny Committee, in our view, required to follow the
same and pass order accordingly. The persistent Judgments/Orders by
overlooking the orders, as well as, the rules so prescribed, definitely
irks the judicial mind and that resulted into even making the adverse
observations by the Courts against the Committee, as already recorded
in many cases. This needs to be avoided by the Committee as the
mandate of the prescribed procedure itself sufficient to pass the order
in favour of the Applicant, unless the case of fraud and/or
misrepresentation is made out. This Court in Pramodkumar
Narendrakumar Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 has recorded as
under:-
"8 Therefore, we are inclined to observe that the
Scrutiny Committee by passing such orders by
1 2015 (4) Mh. L. J. 949
4/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:50:57 :::
dgm 5 903-wp-3190-10.sxw
overlooking the orders passed by this Court as well as
Supreme Court, definitely disrespecting the conclusions
so drawn by the court. Such attitude, in our view, is
deprecated. This is not the case where even the
relations are in dispute. The State Government, in our
view, required to take steps against such Scrutiny
Committee and/or officers who are passing such orders
by overlooking the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court and this courts directly on the issues after taking
into consideration the relatives' caste validity
certificates. Appropriate circular and/or direction is
required to be issued in this regard so that it will save
time and energy of every one including of Courts."
This Judgment has attained finality, as the SLP against it is also
dismissed on 21-09-2015.
7 Therefore, the following order :
ORDER
(a) Impugned judgment and order dated
2/1/2009 passed by respondent No.2 committee
annexed at Exhibit C is quashed and set aside.
(b) Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner,
preferably within eight weeks.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(d) Rule made absolute accordingly.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
