Tarsingh S/O Ramsing Naik vs The State Of Maha. Thr Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2972 Bom

                                                                                                           wp.4182.09

                                                             1



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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4182/2009

Tarsing s/o Ramsing Naik Aged about : 43 years occu: service R/o Lahane Layout, Samarthnagar, Buldhana. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

4)        The Scheduled  Tribe  Certificate 
          Committee, Amravati Division,Amravati
          Through the Vice Chairman 
          having its office at Irwin Chowk, Amravati.                                    ..RESPONDENTS

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents ............................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    R.K.DESHPANDE &
                                                                    MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                     DATED :       8th June,   2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER R.K.DESHPANDE,  J.)

Challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 24th April,

2009 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Amravati Division, Amravati, invalidating the caste claim of the

petitioner for "Naikada" Scheduled Tribe, with further direction to take

wp.4182.09

appropriate action against the petitioner as per Section 10 and 11 of the

Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.

2. The caste certificate, dated 14.06.2004, issued by the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Buldana, indicating that the petitioner belongs to

"Naikada" Scheduled Tribe was the subject-matter of verification before

the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner produced numerous documents

on record, including those pertaining to the period prior to 1950

showing the caste of his blood relatives as "Naikada". The order passed

by the Scrutiny Committee does not refer to any such document but it

relies upon as many as six documents which were said to have been

obtained by the Police vigilance cell in the second round of enquiry.

3. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating

the names of persons, their relationship with the petitioner, kind of

document, date of entry in the documents and the action recorded

therein. These documents pertained to the period from 1954 to 1959

showing the caste recorded as Vanjari. In view of these documents, the

Scrutiny Committee held that the documents relied upon by the

petitioner indicating his caste as "Naikada" Scheduled Tribe, are not at

wp.4182.09

all relevant.

4. When the petitioner specifically denied in his reply to the

show-cause notice, his relationship with the persons in whose names the

documents produced indicate the caste Vanjari, it was necessary for the

Committee to have made an enquiry into such relationship and record a

finding in respect thereof. It was also not expected from the Scrutiny

Committee to brush aside all those documents produced by the

petitioner pertaining to the period prior to 1950 indicating the caste of

the petitioner and his blood relatives as "Naikada" Scheduled Tribe. The

Scrutiny Committee ought to have made a comparative assessment and

the impact of one document over the another, keeping in view the

evidentiary value of such documents. The Scrutiny Committee has failed

to record the findings on relevant aspects of the matter and it is not

possible to digest that the Committee does not understand all these

aspects of the matter. In the absence of findings of fact on the relevant

aspects of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to record findings

on such aspects for the first time in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but

to quash the the impugned order and remand the matter back to the

wp.4182.09

Committee for denovo enquiry and the decision after granting

opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with the rules prescribed for

adjudication.

5. In view of the above, the order dated 24th April,2009 passed

by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Division, Amravati, which is at Annexure "F" to the petition, is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the said

Committee for enquiry afresh and pass an order keeping in view the

observations made by this Court. The petitioner to appear before the

Scrutiny Committee on 29 th

June 2017 . The Committee to decide the

caste claim within a period of six months. The respondent no.2-Scrutiny

Committee shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) to the

petitioner for failing to record the findings on the relevant aspects of the

matter as unless such findings are recorded, the order passed by the

Committee cannot be sustained.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

                                    JUDGE                         JUDGE

sahare