Bombay High Court
Madaan Sitaram Chandanbatwe vs State Of Mah.Thr.Tribal ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp.1044.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1044/2002
* Madan Sitaram Chandanbatwe
Aged about 40 years, occu: service
R/o Darshan Apartments
Ramdaspeth, Akola
Tq.& Dist. Akola. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2) Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims
Amravati.
3) The Sub-Divisional Officer
Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. ..RESPONDENTS
.
...................................................................................................................
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent-State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 21 st
July, 2017
JUDGMENT: (Per Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:47:08 :::
wp.1044.02
2
respondent no.2-Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims,
Amravati, rendered on 22.10.2001, by which the caste certificate of the
petitioner as belonging to 'Dhoba' Scheduled Tribe, issued by the
Executive Magistrate, Akola, on 19.6.1981 has been invalidated.
2. The petitioner is working as Talathi, under the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Akola. The petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Dhoba'
community, which has been notified as a Scheduled Tribe at Sr. No.18 in
the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,1950 in relation to the State
of Maharashtra. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the
Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of verification. The petitioner
submitted in support of his tribe claim, eleven documents before the
said Committee. However, the said Committee without considering those
documents, passed the order invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner
mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish socio-
cultural affinity and ethnic linkage with 'Dhoba' sub-tribe of Gond,
Scheduled Tribe. The Committee observed, " 'Dhoba' Scheduled Tribe has
not been listed as an independent single entry, but it has been clubbed
along with numerous of the synonyms and sub-tribes included in the
Gond, Scheduled Tribe, listed at Sr. No.18". The Committee relied upon
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:47:08 :::
wp.1044.02
3
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dadaji @ Dina
vs. Sukhdeo Babu & others, reported in 1980 S.C.R.150, wherein it has
been held that "only the 'Mana' community having affiliation with the
'Gond' Scheduled Tribe will fall within the scope of the entry". It is
observed in the impugned order passed by the said Committee that the
applicant could not bring out the distinct socio-cultural traits, customs
and traditions prevalent in 'Dhoba' sub-tribe of 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe.
Whatever information has been furnished by the applicant drifts away
from that with regard to the traits and characteristics of 'Dhoba' sub-
tribe of 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe community. Thus, the Scrutiny
Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner.
3. Significantly, the controversy involved in this petition is no
more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Mana Adim Jamat
Mandal, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 98. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the judgments one in the case of Dina vs. Narayansingh,
reported in (1968) 38 ELR 212 and, another, in the case of Dadaji @
Dina vs. Sukhdeo Babu, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 621 stand impliedly
overruled by the decision of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:47:08 :::
wp.1044.02
4
Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, reported in
2001(1) SCC 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs.
Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (supra) held that each of the tribes specified
in entry No.18 must be deemed to be a separate tribe and not sub-tribe
of 'Gond'.
4. Applying the principle laid down as above, in Mana Adim
Jamat Mandal's case, we hold that tribe 'Dhoba' in Entry No.18 of the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in relation to the State of
Maharashtra is an independent and separate tribe and not a sub-tribe
of 'Gond' and the petitioner was not required to establish his affinity
with 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the observations of the Committee
that the petitioner has failed to establish his affinity with 'Gond' cannot
be sustained and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is liable to
be quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee has to examine the
case of the petitioner for 'Dhoba' Scheduled Tribe category, which is not a
sub-tribe of 'Gond'.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact-situation, the following order is
passed:-
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:47:08 :::
wp.1044.02
5
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 22/10/2001 passed by the respondent no.
2-Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Respondent no.2-
Committee for a fresh consideration, in accordance with law,
taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court
and the observations made by this Court.
(iv) The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
th
29 August, 2017 . The Committee can thereafter proceed to
decide the claim in accordance with law.
(v) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
