Prakash S/O Ramlal Bhandopiya vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4321 Bom

 1107WP2086.15-Judgment                                                                         1/7


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                      WRIT PETITION NO.  2086  OF    2015


 PETITIONER :-                        Prakash S/o Ramlal Bhandopiya, Aged about
                                      57   years,   Occupation   :   Service,   R/o.
                                      Sudampuri, Wardha. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) The   State   of   Maharashtra,   Through
                                    Secretary,   Department   of   Industries,
                                    Mantralaya, Mumbai : 32. 
                                 2) Maharashtra   Industrial   Development
                                    Corporation, Office at Mahakali Caves Road,
                                    Andheri   (Es),   Mumbai   through   its   Chief
                                    Executive Officer. 
                                 3) The   Scheduled   Tribe   Certificate   Scrutiny
                                    Committee,   Nagpur   Division,   Nagpur
                                    through   its   Member   Secretary,   Adivasi
                                    Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Mr.P.B.Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
    Mrs.Mrunal Naik, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 3.
               Mr.M.M.Agnihotri, counsel for the respondent No.2.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    ARUN  D. UPADHYE
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 11.07.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

the scrutiny committee dated 03/03/2015, invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe.

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 2/7

2. The petitioner claimed to belong to Thakur scheduled tribe

and was appointed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation on the basis of his caste claim in the year 1980. The caste

claim of the petitioner was referred by the M.I.D.C. to the caste scrutiny

committee in the year 2005. The caste claim of the petitioner was

invalidated by the scrutiny committee as the vigilance cell had

unearthed the school admission register entries pertaining to the

paternal great grand-father, father and paternal uncle of the petitioner

wherein their caste was recorded as Rangari. On the basis of the said

documents, which were not tendered by the petitioner before the

scrutiny committee and were obtained by the vigilance cell while

making an enquiry, the scrutiny committee held that the petitioner had

failed to prove that he belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe. The caste

claim of the petitioner was also rejected because the petitioner failed to

prove his affinity to Thakur scheduled tribe.

3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the order of the scrutiny committee is liable to be set aside as the

petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted

that the petitioner had informed the scrutiny committee on 06/08/2013

that it was not possible for him to remain present before the scrutiny

committee on 14/08/2013 but the request of the petitioner was not

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 3/7

favourably considered. It is stated that it was necessary for the scrutiny

committee to have postponed the date of hearing after 14/08/2013 so

as to grant an opportunity to the petitioner. It is submitted that the

scrutiny committee ought to have validated the caste claim of the

petitioner as the entry 'Rangari' was wrongfully made in the records

pertaining to the father, uncle and great grand-father of the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner had given up his caste claim during

the pendency of the writ petition and had sought the protection of his

services only in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, reported in

2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 (Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra) and

hence, the action on the part of the petitioner of giving up his caste

claim should not come in the way of the petitioner while considering

the challenge to the impugned order.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent Nos.1 and 3 has opposed the prayers made in the petition. It

is submitted that neither had the petitioner proved the documents in

support of his caste claim nor has the petitioner proved his affinity to

Thakur scheduled tribe. It is submitted that the petitioner had

concealed the old documents of the year 1950 and a very old document

pertaining to the great grand-father of the petitioner, which was

unearthed by the vigilance cell. It is stated that the documents

discovered by the vigilance cell falsify the case of the petitioner that he

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 4/7

belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe. It is submitted that the petitioner

has failed to prove his affinity to Thakur scheduled tribe. It is stated

that there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner

that the petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity of hearing. It is

submitted that the petitioner and his brother had appeared before the

scrutiny committee on 22/05/2012 and they were heard. It is stated

that the petitioner was again called for hearing on 17/10/2012 but he

showed his inability to remain present on the said date. It is stated that

when the hearing on 06/08/2013 could not take place and the matter

was posted on 14/08/2013, the petitioner stated that he could not

remain present on 14/08/2013 also. It is stated that in the

circumstances of the case, the scrutiny committee decided the caste

claim of the petitioner, more so when the scrutiny committee had

actually heard the petitioner on 22/05/2012. The learned Assistant

Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the

prayer made in the writ petition and supported the order of the scrutiny

committee. It is stated that the petitioner had falsely claimed the

benefits meant for the Thakur scheduled tribe.

6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 5/7

writ petition, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the

order of the scrutiny committee, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The

petitioner had produced the documents of comparatively recent origin

to prove his claim that he belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe. The

scrutiny committee however unearthed the old documents of the years

1952, 1953 and a still older document which showed that the caste of

the father, paternal uncle and paternal great grand-father of the

petitioner was recorded as 'Rangari' in the school record and the tax

matalaba and receipt register. The scrutiny committee rightly held that

these documents had more probative value than the documents of the

recent origin that were tendered by the petitioner before the scrutiny

committee. The scrutiny committee found on the basis of the old

documents that the petitioner had failed to prove his caste claim on the

basis of the documents. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had

failed to prove his caste claim on the basis of the documents, the

petitioner had also failed to prove his affinity to Thakur scheduled tribe.

Though the scrutiny committee had granted ample opportunity to the

petitioner to remain present before the scrutiny committee after

22/05/2012, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity. When the

matter was posted for hearing before the scrutiny committee on

17/10/2012 and 14/08/2013, the petitioner declined to remain present

before the scrutiny committee by expressing his inability to do so. The

petitioner had indeed appeared before the scrutiny committee along

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 6/7

with his brother Sunil on 22/05/2012 and both the petitioner and his

brother were heard by the scrutiny committee. It is not the case of the

petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner was not heard by the

scrutiny committee on 22/05/2012. If the matter was posted thereafter

on three occasions for hearing, the petitioner should not have expressed

his inability to remain present before the scrutiny committee on two of

the dates of hearing. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said

that the petitioner was not heard or that he was not granted an

opportunity of hearing in the matter of his caste claim.

7. It further appears from the affidavit filed by the petitioner

in this court during the pendency of the writ petition that the claim of

the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe is not correct.

The petitioner has filed an affidavit in this court during the pendency of

the writ petition stating therein that the petitioner has given up his

claim of belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe and his progeny would not

claim the benefits meant for the Thakur scheduled tribe. If the

petitioner really belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe and if he had

challenged the order of the scrutiny committee mainly on the ground

that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, he would not have

given up his caste claim and further given an undertaking that neither

he nor anybody from his family would claim the benefits meant for the

Thakur scheduled tribe, in future. Such an undertaking would not have

1107WP2086.15-Judgment 7/7

been furnished by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ

petition, had the petitioner belonged to Thakur scheduled tribe, since

he had challenged the order of the scrutiny committee mainly on the

ground that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. The

submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he had given up his

caste claim only in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court,

reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 does not appear to be correct. If the

caste claim of the petitioner was wrongly rejected and the petitioner

believed that he belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe, he could not have

given up his caste claim and further given an undertaking that nobody

from his family would claim the benefits meant for the Thakur

scheduled tribe, in future. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

overruled the judgment, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457, the

petitioner's services cannot be protected.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with

no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.

                        JUDGE                                           JUDGE 


 KHUNTE