Gahinath Dagadu Buge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 600 Bom

                                                                908-WP.2802.2017.doc


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2017

 Gahinath Dagadu Buge                 }
 Aged 45 years, residing at           }
 Dhanraj Colony, A/1,                 }
 Room No. 5, Ashadi Padi,             }
 adjacent to Ganpati Temple,          }
 Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane.             }       Petitioner
           versus
 1. State of Maharashtra              }
 through its Secretary, Tribal        }
 Development Department,              }
 Mantralaya, Mumbai                   }
 400 032                              }
                                      }
 2. Scheduled Tribe                   }
 Certificate Scrutiny                 }
 Committee, Nashik Division,          }
 Nashik, through its Member           }
 Secretary, having office at          }
 Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,                }
 Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra              }
 Road, Nashik,                        }
 District Nashik.                     }
                                      }
 3. Director, Civil Defence           }
 Maharashtra State, having            }
 its office at Old Secretariat        }
 Bldg. (Annexe), 3 rd floor,          }
 Fort, Mumbai - 32                    }       Respondents


 Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the petitioner.
 Ms. Neha Bhide - 'B' Panel Counsel for
 respondent nos. 1 to 3.
 Mr. Dayanand Pandhari Jagtap - Joint
 Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Ms.
 Jagruti Vishwas Kumare - Deputy
 Director and Member Secretary and Ms.
 Amita Pandurang Pillewar - Senior
 Research Officer and Member of Scrutiny
 Committee, Nashik present.

                               Page 1 of 24
 J.V.Salunke,PA




::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:24 :::
                                                                    908-WP.2802.2017.doc


                               CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                        B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

DATED :- MARCH 8, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. The petitioner has approached this court in its writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

challenging an order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik.

2. The matter has a prolonged history. The petitioner before

this court relies upon a certificate issued by the competent

authority dated 25th October, 1990, copy of which is annexed as

Annexure 'B' to the writ petition, which certifies the petitioner as

belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. That is issued by

Executive Magistrate, Pathardi.

3. The petitioner, relying upon this certificate, sought

appointment against a reserved post and in the establishment of

the third respondent. The post of Messenger was offered to him

and he was appointed thereon on 1st February, 2003 relying upon

this certificate.

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

4. After the petitioner joined the services, this certificate was

forwarded for scrutiny and verification at the office of the second

respondent. The petitioner's employer forwarded it on 5 th

December, 2009. The petitioner claims that in pursuance of the

scrutiny and verification process provided in the Maharashtra

Act 23 of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioner

appeared before this committee in the first round. He produced

several documents and as enlisted in para 6 of this writ petition

and copies of which also are annexed to the writ petition as

Annexure 'D' collectively.

5. In para 7 of this writ petition, the petitioner states that he

also filed copies of caste certificates issued to the blood relatives

of the petitioner from the paternal side. The grievance of the

petitioner is that despite the voluminous evidence on record, the

committee passed an order on 17th March, 2015 invalidating the

claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled

Tribe, which is not the correct nomenclature as appearing in

Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act,

1976. That order was passed without considering the merits of

the case.

6. The petitioner, as a consequence of this order of the

committee, approached, once again, the competent authority, who

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

is in-charge of issuing the caste/tribe certificates. He filled in an

application in the prescribed form and in a prescribed manner

and requested that authority to certify that he belongs to Koli

Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe and as per the nomenclature or

description in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order

(Amendment) Act, 1976. Thereupon, the competent authority

has now issued a certificate on 26 th November, 2015, copy of

which is at Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. That states that the

petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.

7. In the first round, the petitioner submitted copies of five

caste validity certificates in relation to his cousin brothers and

which certificates of validity have been granted and issued by the

second respondent committee. The petitioner relied upon the

said certificates issued to (i) Kiran H. Buge the cousin brother of

the petitioner from the paternal side, (ii) Balasaheb Buge,

another cousin and in whose favour the caste validity certificate

was issued on 2nd July, 2004 and (iii) Chandrashekhar Buge, in

whose favour the caste validity certificate was issued on 6 th July,

2009. Pertinently, the petitioner claims to have relied also on a

caste validity certificate issued to one Santosh Narayan Buge on

27th July, 2004. The petitioner also placed other records.

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

8. The petitioner complains that despite the above records

being furnished so as to assist the committee in scritinising and

verifying his claim based on the earlier and now revised

certificate of caste/tribe issued (Annexure 'E'), the committee

forwarded the entire material to the Vigilance Cell and sought a

report from that cell. That Vigilance Cell attached to the second

respondent committee submitted its report on 3rd August, 2011.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second

respondent committee, without applying its mind and without

issuing any show cause notice, mechanically forwarded the copy

of this inquiry report of the Vigilance Cell by enclosing it to a

letter dated 22nd October, 2012 addressed to the petitioner. The

petitioner replied to this letter on 5th November, 2012 and

pointed out that he had submitted documentary evidence of blood

relatives from the paternal side as above but in relation to his

brothers and sisters the documents are, according to the report,

certifying them as Koli. The petitioner furnished an explanation

with regard to that by submitting that this may have happened

because of lack of education and ignorance, but at the same time,

if the petitioner's family is not Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, but

Koli simplicitor, then, it was inconceivable that this very

committee issued a validity certificate in favour of Balasaheb

Buge. That, according to the petitioner, therefore, belies the

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

version of the Research Officer as also the contents of the

Vigilance Cell report. Hence, the committee should accept the

request made.

10. There was a hearing held on 26 th February, 2013, at which,

the petitioner appeared. He filled up the requisite form and

forwarded the details, particularly on the questions and queries

regarding socio-cultural affinity. The petitioner has complained

in para 16 that he was called in the cabin of the Joint

Commissioner of the second respondent-committee on 26 th

February, 2013. The committee members heard him, recorded

his statement, including his answers on the questions about the

affinity. Annexure 'K' is the copy of the statement recorded on

26th February, 2013. Since the committee did not decide

anything despite such a hearing, the third respondent, for want of

caste validity certificate, proposed termination of the services of

the petitioner and issued a show cause notice on 8 th January,

2015. The petitioner replied thereto by pointing out that the

committee has not decided the claim and the petitioner can never

be faulted for the inaction or default on the part of the committee.

Since the employer desired to terminate the services, the

petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition being

Writ Petition No. 822 of 2015. A writ of mandamus was sought to

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

direct the committee to decide the claim and his services be

protected till then. It is on such a writ petition that on 18 th

November, 2016, a final order was passed by this court, directing

the committee to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner

on or before 11th January, 2017.

11. It is this exercise, which resulted in the impugned order

dated 11th January, 2017.

12. Mr. Mendadkar appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the committee's order is ex-facie erroneous and vitiated by

total non application of mind. He would submit that the

committee has relied upon adverse materials behind his back and

without putting him to notice, that they were proposed to be used

against him. Mr. Mendadkar submits that the minimal

requirement of fairness and justice is that if the committee relies

upon some material adverse to the petitioner, then a quasi

judicial body should give him an opportunity to explain his

position and deny the contents of this adverse material. It is only

after such an opportunity is given and a oral hearing that the

committee can come to a contrary conclusion or rely upon the

adverse material for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Mr.

Mendadkar has made a serious complaint before us by pointing

out that the petitioner forwarded the certificate of validity issued

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

to one of his cousins, namely, Santosh. The committee, concluded

that the petitioner has failed to establish that the family tree, as

now referred, is the same, which was placed before the

committee. In arriving at the conclusion so as to reject the

petitioner's claim, the committee observes that the petitioner

may rely on several validity certificates issued to the paternal

cousins, but one of the blood relatives of the petitioner, namely,

Sanjiv Buge was not issued a validity certificate. His claim was

rejected on 30th July, 2013. The committee faults the petitioner

for not approaching it with clean hands. If the petitioner is guilty

of suppression of material facts, then the committee should have

put him to notice is the objection of Mr. Mendadkar.

13. Then, the committee has, according to Mr. Mendadkar,

committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding

that the petitioner/applicant does not reside in the area declared

as a scheduled area by the President of India in his notification.

The committee also holds that the petitioner has failed to

establish his claim as belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.

Rather, the committee arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner

is Koli. Mr. Mendadkar submits that there is complete silence in

the committee's order with regard to the certificates of validity,

copies of which were placed before the committee. Mr.Mendadkar

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

would submit that when the petitioner relies upon an order of the

committee in the case of Balasaheb and which was passed by the

same committee way back in 2012, it does not even bother to look

at this certificate of validity. It relies upon the contrary material

and this is nothing but a convenient approach adopted by the

committee. Mr. Mendadkar submits that this committee's

approach has been commented upon by this court adversely on

several occasions. This committee, within the family, makes a

strange distinction and holds in several orders that either the

father is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but the son is not or

the son is, but the father is not. Similarly, in cases of cousins

from the paternal side, either the committee grants a certificate

of validity to the applicant candidate or to his cousin, but never

grants it to both. This creates complete confusion and rather

defeats the mandate of the Act 23 of 2001 is the serious

complaint of Mr. Mendadkar.

14. At one stage Mr. Mendadkar was prepared to file his

personal affidavit with regard to the proceedings conducted by

the committee. He submits that the proceedings before them are

a total farce and makes a mockery of rule of law.

15. It is in the light of this harsh criticism that we thought it fit

to call for the original records in this court. We issued a specific

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

direction to that effect on the earlier date of hearing. The records

have been produced before us. Yesterday when this matter was

placed before us and today we have perused this record with the

assistance of Ms. Bhide learned 'B' Panel Counsel appearing for

respondent nos. 1 to 3. She tried to persuade us and submitted

that we should not be unnecessarily critical. She submits that

there may be some substance in the complaint of Mr. Mendadkar,

but this court should not be unduly harsh, must spare the

committee and its members, who are present in court. They

accept the mistakes and errors and are ready and willing to

correct themselves. On her attention being invited to the specific

contention raised in the petition and equally to the copies of the

communications from the committee to the petitioner and his

reply thereto, she would submit that this court can decide the

matter on the basis of the records.

16. That is how the file has been perused by us. The committee

is aware that the petitioner is Gahinath Dagadu Buge. The case

was received on 8th December, 2009. The papers were handed

over to the Vigilance Cell on 16th June, 2010. The Vigilance Cell

submitted its report on 30th August, 2011. In the Vigilance Cell

report, the Vigilance Officer verifies, according to the committee,

the oldest record of the petitioner's real brother Namdev Buge

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

pertaining to period 1955, in which, the caste is recorded as

Hindu Koli. The officer also obtained the school record in relation

to the petitioner's real sister. That is of the year 1962 and in

which, the caste is recorded as Hindu Koli. It is in these

circumstances that the Research Officer remarked that the

petitioner could not establish his affinity with genuine Koli

Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.

17. Though the committee says as above, on 22 nd October, 2012,

at a hearing held into the petitioner's claim, it holds that the

petitioner did not submit any written explanation on the

Vigilance Cell report. However, the petitioner submitted his reply

and in which he denied the contents of the report. At the second

hearing on 26th February, 2013, though the petitioner was

present, but due to transfer of the Member Secretary of the

committee, he was again called for hearing before the newly

constituted committee on 21st June, 2013. On that day, the

committee says, it gave opportunity to the petitioner to submit

additional documents. On 30th July, 2013, according to the

committee, it passed an order in the case of the petitioner's real

cousin brother Sanjiv Baban Buge invalidating his caste/tribe

certificate. However, we do not find any reference in the

committee's order as to how it derived the relationship between

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

the petitioner and Sanjiv Buge. Ms. Bhide tried her level best to

persuade us by urging that the family tree now relied upon by the

petitioner was never before the committee. The genealogy/family

tree produced before the committee was different and distinct

than the one relied upon. The petitioner does not establish his

relationship with Balasaheb, Kiran or Santosh, but we find

something strange and indeed perplexing. The petitioner is

faulted for not being able to establish his relationship with the

validity certificate holders Balasaheb, Kiran and Santosh, but the

committee discovers that Sanjiv Baban Buge is the real cousin of

the petitioner. Pertinently, the committee never put it to the

petitioner that it desires to utilise this adverse material in its

possession and against the petitioner in the instant case. It never

issued any notice to him that it proposes to rely on the

invalidation in the case of Sanjiv Buge. However, in order to

exhibit its fairness and impartiality, what the committee has done

is to forward the matter again for an inquiry by the Vigilance Cell.

That was done on 28th October, 2013 and promptly after the order

in Sanjiv's case. Then, what the committee discovers is that the

petitioner's tribe certificate does not carry the correct

nomenclature and name of the tribe. It cannot be Mahadeo Koli

Scheduled Tribe, but it should be Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.

That is how it gives an opportunity to the petitioner to correct his

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

claim and obtain a correct caste certificate. The petitioner

obtained such a correction and that is evident by Annexure 'I' to

this writ petition. The committee records in the chronology and

placed before us that on 13th November, 2014, the petitioner

submitted his additional documents and relied upon the

certificates of validity issued to Chandrashekhar Balasaheb Buge

and Santosh Narayan Buge without their affidavit and he also

relies upon 7X12 extracts. Then, as per the direction of this

court in Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2014 and with which the

petitioner has absolutely no connection with that the committee

feels obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner based on his

changed tribe certificate and obtained by him from the competent

authority. It relies upon the fact that the tribe certificate was

changed and re-submitted for scrutiny and verification. The

petitioner, then submitted some new documents pertaining to one

Namdev Dagdu Buge and Mangala Keshav Buge and which

documents pertain to the year 1964. Then, the committee says

that it again handed over the case to the Vigilance Cell to

complete the inquiry. It thought that it would be better to obtain

the report of the Vigilance Cell on the documents submitted by

the petitioner on 13th November, 2014 and 8th January, 2016.

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

18. With this chronology in mind, document by document, we

have perused the file. We find that when the committee proceeds

in the above manner and passes an order, which is impugned

before us, its record would indicate as to how it proceeded and in

tune with the stand taken before this court or otherwise. The

record includes a document, which is styled as Vanshaval. That

says that the ancestor and common is one Malhari. That is how

this family is before it. Then, the record contains the proceedings

of the hearing held on 6th January, 2017. From the record, it is

evident that the committee expresses doubt about the

relationship. The petitioner is supposed to be changing his

version, according to the committee. That is why the committee,

in all fairness, seeks further details from him. However, the

petitioner's application in the prescribed form, duly signed and

about which there is absolutely no objection nor its contents are

questioned, is dated 5th December, 2009. There is a specific

column therein, namely, Column No. 17. The applicant has to fill

in the details therein. We would like to invite the committee's

attention to the title of this column. That is, whether any member

of the family has been subjected to any verification and scrutiny

of the claim, when, the name of such person and his relationship

with the applicant and when such verification and scrutiny was

undertaken. In that column, the petitioner states that the

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

member of the family whose claim was verified and scrutinised by

the committee is Babasaheb Dadarao Buge. He explains that he is

the real cousin brother and not a distant one. The verification

and scrutiny was done on 2nd July, 2004. Then, he says about

Kiran Haribhau Buge. This person is supposed to be related to the

petitioner once again as real cousin and the verification in

relation to his claim was done on 3rd September, 2002.

19. Now, we fail to understand as to how a hyper technical

approach/stand is taken by the committee in this court. One of

the committee members present in court was bold enough to

come forward and keep the advocate aside to explain as to how

the committee was justified in not considering anything else other

than the invalidation of the claim in the case of Sanjiv Buge done

on 30th July, 2013. Pertinently, this over enthusiastic member of

the committee provided no answer to the court's query as to why

despite the claims of Babasaheb/Balasaheb and Kiran being

verified by this committee and way back on 2 nd July, 2004 and 3rd

September, 2002, the copies of the certificates of validity issued

to them have been omitted from consideration. The committee

has failed to not only take them into consideration, but even

furnish any reasonable explanation before us for the omission.

The original record produced before us also contains an affidavit

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

dated 5th December, 2009 of the petitioner himself. It contains

details of the family. Malhari Buge is the common ancestor.

Malhari had two sons Ramji and Laxman. Ramji had two sons

Namdev and Bhausaheb. Namdev's branch includes two sons

Dagdu and Bhandas. The petitioner is the son of Dagdu.

Laxman's branch contains son Baburao and Baburaro has two

sons Dadaba and Balasaheb. As far as Balasaheb Dadaba is

concerned, he is wrongly described as Babasaheb. The record

also includes a certificate of validity issued by the Tribal Research

and Training Institute, Maharashtra State, 28, Queens Garden,

Pune and which certificate is issued by the Committee for

Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nashik Division to

Kiran Haribhau Buge. It says that he belongs to Mahadev Koli

Scheduled Tribe. He was issued a tribe/caste certificate on 27 th

August, 1996 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar, District

Ahmednagar. We also find that there is a school leaving

certificate, which is issued to Balasaheb Buge and copy of which is

very much on record and when it was produced, the Vigilance Cell

has remarked on the copy of this school leaving certificate that

there is some overwriting. The committee does not deem it fit and

proper to inform the petitioner and when he relies upon the

certificate issued to Balasaheb that it is not satisfied with the

contents of this certificate of validity issued to Balasaheb.

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

20. In this fresh round of inquiry through the Vigilance Cell, the

committee has obtained relevant and vital information as to how

there are overwritings in some of the certificates of validity.

Pertinently, the certificate of validity issued to this Balasaheb is

dated 2nd July, 2004. That is also in the file. Coupled with that,

there is an affidavit filed by Balasaheb. Balasaheb supports the

claim of the petitioner before us. Balasaheb relies upon the

certificate issued to him. In his affidavit, he says that he has in

his possession the certificate of validity from this very scrutiny

committee dated 2nd July, 2004. He gives full details including

the particulars of that certificate. Pertinently, Balasaheb's

affidavit, filed before the committee on 4th August, 2011, is also in

the file and which very clearly says that the common ancestor

Malhari had two sons Ramji and Laxman. Laxman had one son

Baburao and Baburao had two sons Dadaba and Babasaheb.

Dadaba has three sons Vishnu, Bhagwan and Balasaheb. In the

case of Balasaheb, there is a certificate of validity issued by this

very scrutiny committee. Similarly, in the branch of Ramji, he

has three sons, namely, Namdev, Sakharam and Bhausaheb. One

person from Sakharam's branch, namely, Haribhau has also been

granted a validity certificate. Haribhau has two sons Kiran and

Amol, who have also been issued the caste validity certificates.

Each one of them are certified as belonging to Mahadev Koli

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

Scheduled Tribe. It is, therefore, shocking as to how this entire

record before the committee and emanating from its own files is

overlooked and one certificate, which has been invalidated on 30th

July, 2013, is the material chosen for being used against the

petitioner without giving any opportunity to him to explain as to

how the other certificates of validity produced by him can be

relied upon in the light of this order. The committee, in this case

produced this file before us and containing all these documents or

certified true copies thereof. They have been placed on record

either by the petitioner or have found their way in the records as

part and parcel of the report of the Vigilance Cell.

21. It is in these circumstances, that we are unable to accept

the argument of Ms. Bhide that the committee's order be

sustained. She would submit that there is a genuine and serious

doubt about the claim of the petitioner. In one family there are

several instances, where certificates of validity have been issued,

but the dispute is about the relationship of these validity

certificate holders with the petitioner. The Research Officer has

also raised serious objections. He has pointed out that the

original place of residence of the petitioner is village Jambhli,

Post Mohojdewdhe, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmadnagar.

Ordinarily, in this area, this tribe was not found. Similarly, the

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

petitioner's relatives have surnames as Shejwal, Modiraj, Aalane,

Mekle and their place of residence are Nashik, Aurangabad,

Dhule, Pathardi etc. These surnames and place of residence are

not consistent with Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, in

the written statement of the petitioner, the petitioner has not

been able to correctly describe the deities, gods and goddesses

and customs, practices and festivals celebrated by Mahadeo Koli

Scheduled Tribe and his answers and explanations are not

consistent with the prevailing practices and customs in that tribe.

She would also submit that there are other matters such as

overwriting and interpolating etc. which would indicate that the

claim of the petitioner is not free from doubt and cannot be

termed as acceptable or genuine.

22. Ms. Bhide has, therefore, submitted that we should not be

unduly critical and harsh on the approach of the committee. It is

an error, but committed bonafide. The committee or its members

have no personal grudge far from any ulterior motive in denying

the claim. She, therefore, has prayed for a remand of this matter

to the committee again.

23. Ordinarily we would have granted this request, but we find

that the committee's inconsistency and lack of seriousness at

least in this case is obvious. When the committee gives an

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

opportunity to the petitioner to obtain a corrected tribe certificate

and then forward it for its scrutiny and verification, it makes a

fresh inquiry on its own. It addresses communication to the Sub-

Divisional Officer and seeks his explanation as to whether any

tribe certificate was issued by his office. What we find is that the

communication from the committee, through its Vigilance Cell is

replied by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi Division, Pathardi

on 9th December, 2016. He informs the Vigilance Cell and the

committee consequently that the petitioner resides in village

Jambhli, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmadnagar and he belongs to

Hindu Koli Mahadev. This is the certificate issued from his office

on 24th November, 2015. This is a certificate issued after

perusing the original register. There is neither any change or

alteration therein. We find that when the committee's orders are

containing patent and glaring errors of law, it would not be proper

to send the matter for scrutiny back to this very committee. We

are dissatisfied and unhappy with the manner in which the

committee and its members have proceeded in this case. Within

the family it has granted the certificates of validity to some while

denying the same to others. When it granted the certificate of

validity to one person (Sanjiv), it invalidated it on 30 th July,

2013. However, the certificates of validity of Kiran, Balasaheb,

Haribhau and Amol remain intact. No action seems to have been

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

taken in relation thereto. The verification and scrutiny in relation

to them was carried out in 2002 and 2004. If these certificates

were obtained by fraud, the committee should have been bold

enough to say so. Instead, it omits from consideration the above

validity certificates though they have a high probative value. The

committee ought to realise that it is performing statutory duty.

The committee ought to realise that before it adopts a adversarial

position or stand before the High Court, it must satisfy the High

Court that it has done its work properly and performed its task

and job strictly in accordance with law, namely, the Act 23 of

2001 and the rules framed thereunder. The committee has

miserably failed to satisfy us on this core issue.

24. As a result of the above discussion, we quash and set aside

the impugned order. We allow the writ petition. We transfer the

proceedings now to the Scrutiny Committee at Pune. Let the

Scrutiny Committee at Pune verify and scrutinise the tribe claim

of the petitioner afresh strictly on merits and in accordance with

law. It shall take into consideration every material referred by us

in the forgoing paragraphs. It shall pass a reasoned order after

allowing the petitioner a complete opportunity to satisfy it about

the genuineness and bonafides of his claim. If the committee

desires to discard any of the certificates of validity issued in the

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

family and to the petitioner's paternal cousins on established and

permissible legal grounds, then, it would be open for the

committee to express its disapproval with the contents of the

certificates of validity issued to these paternal cousins and come

to an appropriate conclusion. However, when it comes to an

adverse conclusion, it must rely upon the available research data

and material, which would indicate as to how Kolis are obtaining

tribe certificates certifying them as Koli Mahadeo Scheduled

Tribe and systematically snatching and taking away the benefits

and concessions meant for the tribe though their claims are not

genuine and bonafide. The committee ought to assign cogent and

satisfactory reasons if it is of the view that there is an increasing

tendency to obtain these certificates of validity. This is a fraud

and, therefore, in cases, where it is established and proven, the

committee can ignore these certificates. Equally,

misrepresentation of facts must also be taken into consideration.

The committee must perform its duty and obligation in law and

assign reasons if it is of the opinion that the certificates of validity

have no evidentiary value. The fraud must be established and

proved, equally the misrepresentation. The manner in which the

fraud has been perpetrated must be indicated with particulars,

data and figures. We expect the committee to perform its duty

and obligation so that other committees scrutinising such claims

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

would be guided in future. We hope and trust that this duty will

be performed and in accordance with the mandate of the Act and

the rules.

25. We are constrained to hold that the three committee

members of the Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, namely, D. P.

Jagtap, J. V. Kumare and Amita Pillewar, who have passed the

impugned order, do not deserve to be the members of such

scrutiny committee. They seem to be unaware of their duty and

obligation. They are either completely ignorant of the mandate of

the Act 23 of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder or they are

purposely indulging in acts which result in further litigation.

Their job is not to generate litigation and in the manner noted by

us. It is, therefore, for the competent authority in the State to

take note of the observations made by us about the conduct of the

scrutiny committee members. We derive no pleasure in recording

our disapproval in these words. Repeatedly, we have summoned

them in this court and given them dressing down simply because

they do not even bother to peruse the orders of this court, their

own record, leave alone consider the documents therein. If they

are not performing a public duty and subserving larger public

interest, then, we are forced to bring to the notice of the higher

authorities their deplorable conduct. We do so in these terms.

J.V.Salunke,PA

908-WP.2802.2017.doc

26. A copy of this order be forthwith forwarded to the Chief

Secretary to the State of Maharashtra and the Secretary in the

Department of Tribal Development, Government of Maharashtra.

27. The original file shall be returned to Ms. Bhide after she

replaces the documents therein with certified true copies thereof.

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

J.V.Salunke,PA