Moreshwar Laxmanrao Jambulkar vs The Committee For Scrutiny & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7191 Bom

                                      1                   WP1063-04.odt         



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                         Writ Petition No.1063/2004
                                      ...


Moreshwar s/o Laxmanrao Jambulkar,
Age 26 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Post - Wadagaon, Tq. Warud,
Distt. Amravati.            ..                               PETITIONER


                               .. Versus ..


The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Irvin Square, Amravati.                       ..          RESPONDENT



None for the Petitioner.
Shri N.R. Rode, A.G.P. for Respondent.

                               ....


              CORAM : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.

DATED : September 14, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per R.K. Deshpande, J. )

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order

dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and

Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati, invalidating the claim of

the petitioner for Arakh, a Scheduled Tribe Category, which is

2 WP1063-04.odt

an Entry at Sr. No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)

Order, 1950. The claim of the petitioner was verified as the

petitioner wanted to pursue his education as a candidate

belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category. The Committee has

invalidated the caste certificate dated 13.07.2001 produced by

the petitioner and one of the grounds to set it aside is that the

controversy is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in

Dadaji @ Dina .vs. Sukhadeobabu and others reported in

AIR 1980 Supreme Court 150, in which it was held that the

Entry No.18 in the Scheduled Tribes Order in relation to the

State of Maharashtra, contains various sub castes of main

caste Gond and only those having affinity with Gond can be

considered as Scheduled Tribe.

2. In the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the

case of State of Maharashtra and others .vs. Mana Adim

Jamat Mandal reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases

98, it is held that each tribe mentioned in entry No.18 is a

separate tribe and is not a sub tribe of main tribe i.e. Gond. In

view of the said decision, it is not necessary to establish an

affinity with Gond. If the claim is for Arakh Scheduled Tribe

which is included in Entry No.18, then affinity with Arakh is

required to be established. The decision of the Apex Court in

3 WP1063-04.odt

the case of Dadaji @ Dina .vs. Sukhadeobabu and others

(supra) has been specifically held to be impliedly overruled in

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra .vs. Milind reported in (2001) 1 Supreme

Court Cases 4.

3. In view of the aforesaid decision, the order impugned

cannot be sustained and it will have to be set aside with an

order of remand for consideration afresh.

4. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, quash and set

aside the order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Scrutiny

Committee and direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the

caste claim of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the fact

that the decision of the Apex Court in Dadaji @ Dina .vs.

Sukhadeobabu and others has been overruled and remains

no longer a good law.

5. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

(Manish Pitale, J. ) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) ...

halwai/p.s.