Bombay High Court
Manohar Balkrishna Pinjarkar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 27 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp.5155.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5155/2005
* Manohar Balkrishna Pinjarkar
Aged about 45 years occu: service
R/o At, Po: Angaon, Vaidant Building
1st floor, Room No.101,
Tah. Bhiwandi Dist.Thane, Mumbai. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claims
Amravati: Through its Chairman
Irwin Chowk, Near Employment
Exchange Office, Morshi Road,
Amravati.
3) Divisional Controller
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation,
Division Thane, Dist. Thane. ..RESPONDENTS
.
...................................................................................................................
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1& 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 27 th
July, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:59 :::
wp.5155.05
2
JUDGMENT: (Per Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of
respondent no.2-Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims,
Amravati, rendered on 11.4.2005, by which the caste certificate of the
petitioner as belonging to 'Raj' Scheduled Tribe, issued by the Executive
Magistrate, Amravati on 12.12.1989 has been invalidated.
2. The petitioner is working with the Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Division Thane District
Thane. The petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Raj' 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, twenty five documents including the documents pertaining
to pre-Constitution era, 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
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:59 :::
wp.5155.05
3
linkage with 'Raj' sub-tribe of 'Gond', Scheduled Tribe. The Committee
observed, " 'Raj' 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 further observed that the information
provided by the petitioner about his family and community deities,
marital ceremonies, family deity, the ceremonies observed after birth,
rites performed after death, family and community deities of the family
etc. do not resemble with that of 'Raj'. The Committee relied upon 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 'Raj' 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 'Raj' sub-tribe of
'Gond' Scheduled Tribe community. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee
rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:59 :::
wp.5155.05
4
3. It is pertinent to note that 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 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 'Raj' 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
::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:46:59 :::
wp.5155.05
5
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 'Raj' Scheduled Tribe category, which is not a sub-
tribe of 'Gond'.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact-situation, the following order is
passed:-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 11.04.2005 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 to make enquiry afresh and decide the caste claim of
the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view the
observations made by this Court.
(iv) The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 11th
th
wp.5155.05
September, 2017.
(v) The Respondent no.2-Committee shall decide the caste
claim within a period of one year from the date of first appearance
of the petitioner before the Committee.
(vi) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
