Bombay High Court
Dattatray Vilas Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 27 June, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 452 OF 2006
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1053 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 452 OF 2006
Dattatray Vilas Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP, for the Respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil, for Respondent No. 7-BMC.
----------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 27 June 2017
JUDGMENT : (Per B.R. GAVAI, J)
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Sharayu. 1/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
2. Heard by consent.
3. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the
scrutiny committee dated 22 December 2005, thereby
invalidating the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to Thakar
Scheduled Tribe. It is the second round of litigation. On earlier
occasion the Petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakar Scheduled
Tribe came to be rejected by the order of the scrutiny committee
dated 9 June 2003. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner
had approached this Court by way of the Writ Petition No. 7847
of 2004. Said Petition was allowed by order dated 11 October
2004 and case of the Petitioner came to be remanded to the
scrutiny committee for consideration afresh. By the impugned
order the scrutiny committee confirmed its earlier view and
again rejected the claim. Being aggrieved thereby, the present
case.
4. Heard Shri. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner and Shri. Sagare, learned AGP for the State.
Sharayu. 2/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
5. The learned AGP states that on perusal of documents
placed on record itself it is clear that some of the documents
pertaining to the Petitioner's caste filed along with the
application showed the Petitioner's caste to be of Nomadic Tribe
and some showed to be Scheduled Tribe. It is therefore,
submitted that in view of the conflicting certificates, the scrutiny
committee has rightly held that the Petitioner has failed to prove
that the Petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
6. We have perused the order of scrutiny committee.
Perusal of order of scrutiny committee reveals that the scrutiny
committee has invalidated claim of the Petitioner on two
grounds; one, the Petitioner has failed the affinity test and two,
some of the documents of the Petitioner and his father showed
the caste to be Thakar Nomadic Tribe/Backward Classes.
7. We find that the issue is no more was integral.
8. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, their Lordships
Sharayu. 3/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
of the Apex Court in case of Anand Katole Vs. Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee1 have held that while
considering the claim of candidate, the predominance will have
to be given the pre-constitutional documents. It has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that by efflux of time, it is probable
that the candidate may not be aware about the old customs,
usage and traditions and may not pass the affinity test.
However, their Lordship held that each case will have to be
decided on the facts and circumstances of each case.
9. In the present case also, it is to be seen that the
preconstitutional documents of the Petitioner's grandfather of
the year 1937 shows his grandfather's caste to be Thakar. The
vigilance cell of the scrutiny committee has inspected the school
and found the said document to be genuine. We find that except
the casual reference to the said document, the scrutiny
committee has not observed as to why the said document cannot
be believed. We further find that the scrutiny committee has
also not given any reasons as to why it is discarding the report
1 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919
Sharayu. 4/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
of the vigilance cell, though it supports the case of the
Petitioner.
10. In that view of the matter, we find that the
reasoning given by the scrutiny committee on this count is not
sustainable.
11. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the
Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of Petitions being Writ
Petition No. 6048 of 2004 along with companion Petitions, vide
its order dated 14 September 2004 has found that the State
Government itself went on changing the stands. For some time
Thakar in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg District were treated as
Scheduled Tribe and for some time as Nomadic Tribe. However,
the Division Bench held that in view of the Judgment of the
Apex Court in case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya
Samrakshna Samithi Vs. State Of Kerala 2, once the entry of a
particular tribe was found in the presidential order, further
enquiry was not permissible in law. In the present case, we find
2 1994 SCC (1) 359
Sharayu. 5/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
that since the Petitioner's grandfather's preconstitutional
documents of the year 1937 finds the Petitioner's grandfather's
tribe to be of Thakar and further vigilance cell finds the said
document to be germane, the scrutiny committee has erred in
discarding the said document and rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner.
12. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and
set aside.
13. Rule is made absolute by holding that the
Petitioner belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe.
14. Respondent No. 2-scrutiny committee is
directed to issue a validity certificate in favour of the Petitioner
within a period of four weeks from today.
15. Needless to state that all consequential actions
shall follow.
Sharayu. 6/7
8-WP-452-06&CAW-1053-17.doc
16. In view of disposal of the present Writ Petition,
all pending Civil Applications are also disposed of.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]
Sharayu. 7/7
