Bombay High Court
Lisha Digambar Dudhare vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5244 OF 2008
Lisha Digambar Dudhare
Aged 18 years, residing at
Room no. 49, Amar Nagar
Premier Road, Navpada
Kurla (W),
Mumbai: 400 070 ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032
2. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims at
Nashik through its Member Secretary
having its office at Adivashi Vikas
Amaravati, District Amaravati ...Respondents
----------
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
----------
Sharayu. 1/10
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:47:54 :::
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 20 June 2017
JUDGMENT : (Per RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J)
1. The Petitioner is a citizen of India claiming to be
belonging to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe, which is recognised
as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the Secretary, Tribal
Development Department, State of Maharashtra having overall
superintendence over Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is
the Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Tribe claims at
Amaravati ("the Scrutiny Committee"). Respondent No. 3 is the
College in which the Petitioner is studying in the second year of
B.Sc.
3. The Petitioner by this Petition is challenging the
order dated 16 January 2008 ("the impugned order") passed by
Sharayu. 2/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
Respondent No. 2 invalidating the caste certificate of the
Petitioner as belonging to Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. The
Petitioner had been granted the caste certificate on 3 June 1996
by the Competent Authority. The Petitioner had applied to
Respondent No. 2 for verification of the caste certificate and
submitted the requisite documents under the standing orders of
the Government. The Petitioner had amongst the documents
supplied a duplicate school transfer certificate of the Petitioner's
grandfather issued by the Corporation Marathi Boys School No.
4, Temple Garden, Ramdas Peth, Akola, wherein it is clearly
recorded that the grandfather of the Petitioner by name Laxman
Badayya was admitted in primary school at Akola on 3 July
1939 and his caste was recorded as Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe.
However, Respondent No. 2-Committee relied upon a document
produced by the Petitioner's father viz a duplicate school leaving
certificate from New Era High School, Akola where the
Petitioner's father's date of birth is shown as 27 May 1955 and
date of admission as 28 June 1965 and the caste of the
Petitioner's father is recorded as "Telgu". The case certificate
Sharayu. 3/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
issued to the Petitioner's father by the Tahsildar and Executive
Magistrate, Akola on 3 August 1976 was also produced. An
enquiry report was prepared by Respondent No. 2-Committee
and sent to the Petitioner and to which the Petitioner's had
given his reply. A hearing was also provided and the statement
of the Petitioner's father was recorded. The Petitioner was called
for a hearing when her father and grandfather appeared before
Respondent No. 2-Committee and represented her case.
4. Respondent No. 2-Committee passed an impugned
Judgment and Order on 16 January 2008 invalidating the caste
certificate of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 placed
reliance on the school leaving certificate of the Petitioner's
father, wherein the caste of the Petitioner's father is recorded as
"Telgu". The impugned order has found that the Petitioner has
not been able to prove her affinity with the Mannewar,
Scheduled Tribe.
5. The Petitioner by this Petition seeks quashing of the
Sharayu. 4/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
impugned Judgment and Order dated 16 January 2008 passed
by Respondent No. 2 and for this Hon'ble Court to hold and
declare that the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner is valid
and subsisting.
6. Shri. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner had produced a pre-
constitutional document viz. The duplicate school transfer
certificate of the Petitioner's grandfather wherein his caste was
recorded as "Mannewar" in the year 1939.
7. Shri. Mendadkar has placed reliance upon the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court "Nagpur Bench" dated 10
April 2017, where one of us was a part of the Bench and has
submitted that the present Petition is squarely covered by this
Judgment. It is clear from the Judgment that Respondent No. 2-
Committee had erroneously relied upon the school leaving
certificate of the Petitioner's father wherein the caste was
mentioned as "Telgu". The Division Bench of this Court in the
Sharayu. 5/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
Judgment had held that "Telgu" or "Telangi" refers to a region
which was part of Andhra Pradesh and now a separate state.
The Division Bench has in turn placed reliance upon the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Katole Vs.
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 1,
wherein it was held that pre-constitutional document will have
to be given a greater probative value than the affinity test. Shri.
Mendadkar has submitted that in the present case the Petitioner
had supplied the pre-constitutional document of the Petitioner's
grandfather wherein the caste was clearly recorded as
"Mannewar" in the year 1939.
8. Shri. Mendadkar has submitted that in the light of
the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 10 April 2017,
the present Petition also ought to be made absolute and the
impugned order be quashed on the same reasoning given in the
Judgment.
9. Shri. Samant, the learned Counsel for the
1 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919
Sharayu. 6/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
Respondent No. 1 countered these submissions by contending
that Respondent No. 2-Committee had in its order dated 16
January 2008 come to the correct finding that the Petitioner had
not been able to prove an affinity with Mannewar, Scheduled
Tribe. Shri. Samant has placed reliance upon the Judgment of
this Court "Nagpur Bench" to contend that the Scrutiny
Committee had applied the affinity test in that case and held
that the Petitioner has failed to establish any affinity. It is to be
observed that in the Judgment relied upon by Shri. Samant, the
order of the Scrutiny Committee had been quashed and set aside
by this Court and that reliance was placed on a prior Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in a case Anil Ramdas Mede
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2, wherein it was noted that
Telgu is not caste, but official language declared under the VIII th
Schedule of the Constitution of India. In that Judgment, the
Division Bench had in the light of undisputed documents found
it not proper to rely upon the vigilance cell report.
2 2004(0) BCI 384
Sharayu. 7/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
10. We are of the considered view that the
judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 1 in fact supports the Petitioner and in that case
also the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue validity
certificate as "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe in favour of the
Petitioner. We are of the considered view that the Judgment of
this Court - Nagpur Bench dated 10 April 2017 squarely applies
to the present Petition and particularly since the Petitioner had
produced the pre-constitutional document of the Petitioner's
grandfather which had established that his caste is that of
Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe.
11. We are of the view that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Anand Katole Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee (supra) has held that pre-constitutional
document will have to be given a greater probative value than
the affinity test. Merely because the Petitioner's father's school
leaving certificate and his caste certificate mentioned the caste
as "Telgu" in 1976, this cannot override the pre-constitutional
Sharayu. 8/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
document of the Petitioner's grandfather which had recorded his
caste as Mannewar in the year 1939. Further, the Judgment of
this Court in Balayya alias Balraj s/o Hiralal Pagade (Pagale)
Vs. State of Maharashtra3 also supports the Petitioner's case as
it is found that "Telgu" cannot be considered as a caste, but is an
official language and that the caste would be Mannewar which
is a Scheduled Tribe. We are of the considered view that the
Respondent No. 2-Committee in the impugned order had
erroneously found that the Petitioner had not been able to prove
affinity with the Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe.
12. We are unable to sustain the impugned order
dated 16 January 2008 passed by the Respondent No. 2-
Committee. The impugned order dated 16 January 2008 passed
by the Respondent No. 2-Committee is accordingly, quashed and
set aside.
13. We hold and declare that the caste certificate
3 Writ Petition No. 4432 of 2003 dated 04.04.2016
Sharayu. 9/10
901-WP-5244-08-II.doc
describing the Petitioner's caste as "Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe"
is valid, legal and subsisting.
14. Respondent No. 2 scrutiny committee is
directed to issue valid certificate to the Petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today.
15. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]
Sharayu. 10/10
