Smt. Jyoti Giridhar Idekar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4798 Bom

                                                                                           WP-10690-2016.doc

  
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 of 2016



 Smt. Joyti Giridhar Idekar                                                              ...Petitioner

            Versus

 State of Maharashtra through its                                                        ...Respondents
 Secretary, Tribal Development and Ors.

                                                        ----------

 Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.

 Mr. V. N. Sagare, AGP for the Respondent-State.


                                                        ----------


                                                         CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
                                                                 RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 20 July 2017

JUDGMENT : (Per Riyaz I. Chagla, J.)

1. Petitioner by the present petition challenges the impugned

communication dated 24th July 2016 issued by Respondent

No.2 Sub Divisional Officer, refusing to issue caste certificate to

Devendra 1/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

the Petitioner who is belonging to the "Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled

Tribe".

2. The Petitioner had been initially refused caste certificate

by the Competent Authority. The Petitioner filed an Appeal

before the Appellate Authority and the Appeal came to be

rejected by an order dated 30th October 1993. The Petitioner

being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.1435/1994 in this Court

and the Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 24th March

1994 and it was declared that the Petitioner is belonging to the

Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe and the order passed by the

Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside with a direction

to Respondent No.2 to issue the caste certificate within a period

of two weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the Competent

Authority i.e. Executive Magistrate, Shriwardhan Dist. Raigad

granted caste certificate to the Petitioner as belonging to the

Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner came to be

appointed on the basis of the caste certificate to the post of

Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner was directed to submit

Devendra 2/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

documents for verification of her claim to be belonging to the

Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner filed the prescribed application

form online to Respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee mentioning

in the relevant column of the application form, the caste as

"Mahadeo Koli". However, because of not mentioning the

correct nomenclature as caste as "Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled

Tribe" as per this specific notification, her application for

verification was not processed. The Petitioner has relied upon

the judgments passed by this, Court at Aurangabad Bench in

Writ Petition No.4536/2014 with 4542/2014, dated 14th

August 2014 and in Writ Petition No.8738/2015, dated 26th

August 2015, by which judgments this Court was pleased to

direct all concerned Authorities to issue caste certificates as

belonging to "Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe" if the earlier

caste certificate were issued by the Competent Authorities as

belonging to "Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe", made an

application dated 4th July 2016 to the Respondent No.2 for

grant of caste certificate in the correct nomenclature as "Koli

Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe". The Respondent No.2 Sub

Devendra 3/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

Divisional Officer, without hearing the Petitioner refused by the

impugned communication to issue the caste certificate to the

Petitioner in the correct nomenclature as "Koli Mahadeo,

Scheduled Tribe" on the ground that the Petitioner did not

produce documentary evidence as "Koli Mahadeo"s prior to

1950 as per G.R. dated 7th March 1996. The Petitioner has filed

the present Petition challenging the impugned communication

of Respondent No.2.

3. Shri. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner has

submitted that the present Petition is squarely covered by the

prior judgments of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ

Petitions 4536/2014 with 4542/2014 and 8738/2015 (supra).

Shri. Mendadkar had submitted that the Aurangabad Bench of

this Court had directed Sub Divisional Officer to carry out the

necessary change in the nomenclature, where "Mahadeo Koli"

had been mentioned instead of "Koli Mahadeo" and to issue the

caste certificate in the correct nomenclature "Koli Mahadeo,

Scheduled Tribe". It was observed by the Court that there were

Devendra 4/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

several caste certificates which had been issued in favour of

persons belonging to "Koli Mahadeo" category by referring to

the tribe as "Mahadeo Koli" and such certificate had been

validated by the Scrutiny Committees and orders have been

issued in favour of thousands of Applicants. The Aurangabad

Bench of this Court has held that there is no separate tribe or

caste in the State of Maharashtra as "Mahadeo Koli". The

appropriate change was thus directed by the Court to the

Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer to issue caste

certificates on the basis of production by the Applicant of the

caste certificate issued in favour of the Applicant, earlier,

without insisting on any other evidence. Shri. Mendadkar

further submitted that the Petitioner had previously approached

this Court by filing Writ Petition 5658/2016 being aggrieved by

an order dated 24th November 2015 passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer refusing the Petitioner's application for grant

of caste certificate in regard to her being "Koli Mahadeo" on the

ground that the Petitioner did not submit evidence in support of

her claim. By an order dated 20th January 2017, this Court

Devendra 5/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

relying on the Aurangabad Bench judgment of this Court in Writ

Petition No.8738/2015 (supra) set aside the impugned order of

the Sub Divisional Officer and directed the Sub Divisional

Officer to decide the Petitioner's claim afresh keeping in view

the observations made in the said judgment of this Court,

Aurangabad Bench and issue the certificate. Shri. Mendadkar

has submitted that a similar order is required to be passed in the

present Petition as the Respondent No.2 by an impugned

communication has refused to issue caste certificate to the

Petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe".

4. Shri. Sagare, learned AGP for Respondent-State has not

been able to justify the impugned communication and has only

contended that the Petitioner had not produced any document

in support of her claim of belonging to the caste of "Koli

Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe".

5. We are of the considered view that the present Petition is

covered by the above referred judgments of the Aurangabad

Bench of this Court followed in the order dated 20th January

Devendra 6/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

2017 in Writ Petition No.5658/2016 filed by the Petitioner. We

are of the considered view that this Court has consistently taken

the stand that caste certificate have been issued in favour of

persons belonging to "Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe" where

the Tribe has been referred to "Mahadeo Koli" and such

certificates have been validated by the respective Scrutiny

Committees. The Scrutiny Committees have not objected to the

reference of the Tribe as "Mahadeo Koli" instead of "Koli

Mahadeo". It is an admitted position that there is no separate

Tribe or caste in the State of Maharashtra as "Koli Mahadeo".

6. We accordingly pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order is quashed and set aside,

and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent

No.2 - the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the

Petitioner's claim in the light of the observations

made in the judgment of this Court (Aurangabad

Devendra 7/8

WP-10690-2016.doc

Bench) date 14.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition

No.4536 of 2014 (Prakash Bhople Vs. Dy. Collector

(General), Latur & Ors.), and issue the certificate to

the Petitioner as per his entitlement. Respondent

No.2 shall take the decision within a period of four

weeks from today.

 [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA  J.]                                                          [B.R. GAVAI, J.]




 Devendra                                                                                                                  8/8