Bombay High Court
Ankita Ashok Nimmalwar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 25 September, 2017
Bench: Shantanu S. Kemkar
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.25738 OF 2017
Ankita Ashok Nimmalwar, )
Aged 20 years, residing at Collector )
Colony, Type - 4, Building No.12, )
Room No.1, Sindhudurgnagari, Tal.Kudal )
District Sindhudurg. ) ...Petitioner
....Versus....
1). State of Maharashtra )
Through its Secretary, Tribal )
Development Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
)
2). Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny )
Committee, Konkan Division, Thane )
through its Member Secretary )
having its office at Vedant Complex, )
Vartak Nagar Ward Committee Office )
Opposite Kores Company, Vartak )
Nagar Wagale Estate, Thane (West) )
District Thane. )
)
3. Directorate of Medical Education And )
Research And Competent Authority )
State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, )
having its office Dental College )
Building, St.George's Hospital )
Compound, Near C.S.T., Fort, )
Mumbai - 400 001. )
)
4. B.J. Medical College, Pune )
Through its Dean, having its office )
at Sasoon Hospital, Pune - 411 001. )
)
5. Deputy Collector, Sindhudurg )
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2017 00:18:09 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
District Sindhudurg. ) ...Respondents
Mr.R.K. Mendadkar with Mr.C.K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General with Mr.Akshay Shinde,
Special Counsel, and Mr.S.B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the State -
Respondent.
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
G.S. KULKARNI , JJ.
DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER G.S. Kulkarni, J.) :-
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard
finally.
2. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenges the order dated 29 th August, 2017
passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Konkan Division, Thane (for short "Caste Scrutiny Committee")
whereby the caste certificate validity claim of the petitioner belonging
to the "Mannervarlu", Scheduled Tribe has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that by birth she belongs to
"Mannervarlu" tribe, which was notified as Scheduled Tribe under the
Act of the Parliament No.108 of 1976. The petitioner was granted a
caste certificate dated 7th April, 2007 by respondent no.5 / competent
authority, which according to the petitioner was granted after
necessary enquiry.
4. As the petitioner was aspiring to pursue higher education,
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
she approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee seeking validity of her
caste certificate. In support of her claim for a validity certificate, the
petitioner placed on record of the Committee number of documents.
The vital documents being school leaving certificate of the father of
the petitioner Mr.Ashok Laxman Nimmalwar, the petitioner's own
caste certificate, as also the caste validity certificates granted by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee to the petitioner's father, real sister -
Archana Laxman Nimmalwar, real brother - Umesh Laxman
Nimmalwar and real uncle - Mr.Maruti Laxman Nimmalwar. By the
impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, though has referred
to the caste validity certificates granted in favour of the said family
members of the petitioner, however, discarded the same on a
reasoning that in granting the said validity certificates to the said
relatives the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not undertaken an
appropriate vigilance enquiry. It was observed that the vigilance cell
enquiry has not indicated any documentary evidence prior to 1950.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee observed that the school leaving
certificate of the petitioner as also the petitioner's father recorded the
tribe as "Manervarlu" which is not the in the exact nomenclature as
prescribed under the law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the
impugned order would urge that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
passed the impugned order in complete non-application of mind. It is
submitted that firstly, the caste validity certificates granted to the
father of the petitioner, real brother, real sister and real uncle could
not have been completely discarded in view of any justifiable reason.
It is submitted that secondly the reason as recorded by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner does not belong to
"Mannervarlu" tribe, referring only to the vernacular nomenclature
used in the school leaving certificate issued to the father, is wholly
unjustified, inasmuch as apart from "Mannarvarlu" tribe, there is no
other caste of any such nomenclature. Our attention has been invited
specifically to the specific averments to this effect made in the
petition, namely ground No.(iv) at page no.13, to contend that in the
column of tribe as referred to in the school leaving certificate of the
father when it records the caste to be "Manervarlu", it would not
make any difference, as there is no other caste or tribe of a similar
nomenclature, as the school leaving certificate would indicate. It is
next submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has completely
misinterpreted the requirement of the 1976 Act, which clearly
incorporates "Mannervarlu" as Scheduled Tribe for the State of
Maharashtra.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General along
with Mr.Akshay Shinde, the learned special counsel would oppose
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
this petition on the ground that the vigilance enquiry, which was
undertaken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in granting the caste
validity certificates to the petitioner's father, real brother, real sister
and real uncle was not appropriately conducted. It is further submitted
that the impugned order has taken into consideration all the relevant
facts and it was therefore, appropriate for the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to pass the impugned order. Learned special counsel has
drawn our attention to the report of the Vigilance Cell dated 21 st
October, 2006, which was considered by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee in granting a caste validity certificate to the father of the
petitioner. It is submitted that this vigilance report shows that certain
documents which are not of the relatives of the paternal side of the
petitioner's father were considered. It is thus submitted that the
petition be dismissed.
7. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties. With
their assistance, we have perused the impugned order. We have also
gone through the caste validity certificates which are issued in favour
of the petitioner's father, real brother, real sister and real uncle. We
have also perused the report of the Vigilance Enquiry dated 21 st
October, 2006 conducted by the Vigilance Cell considered by the
Scrutiny Committee while granting the caste certificate to the
petitioner's father.
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
8. We may, at the out-set, observe that this is a peculiar case
where the Caste Scrutiny Committee has discarded four vital
documents viz. caste validity certificates issued by the Scrutiny
Committee as granted to the petitioner's father, real brother, real
sister and real uncle that they belong to Scheduled Tribe
"Mannervarlu". We would not agree with the learned special counsel
when he submits that the vigilance report which was undertaken
while granting the caste certificate to the father of the petitioner was
inappropriate or the vigilance officer did not consider any document
from the petitioner's father's paternal side. The submission goes
contrary to the report of the vigilance enquiry. The report of the
vigilance enquiry clearly indicates that the Vigilance Cell had taken
into consideration the caste certificates which were issued to the
petitioner's uncle (father's brother) Mr.Maruti Laxman Nimmalwar and
sister of the petitioner's father recording that both of them possess
certificates belonging to "Mannervarlu" tribe. Learned special counsel
is not in a position to point out any other serious deficiency in the
vigilance report as undertaken in that regard.
9. As regards the facts of the present case, a perusal of
paragraph 8 of the impugned order would clearly indicate that the
observations as made therein to discard the four caste validity
certificates granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are discarded
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
without any justifiable reason. The other reason to reject the claim of
the petitioner's description of the tribe / caste as referred is that in the
school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father defers from the
description / nomenclature as would be required under the law.
10. We are certainly not impressed with the above reasonings
of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as recorded in the impugned order.
Merely to say that the vigilance enquiry undertaken while granting a
validity certificate to the petitioner's father was casual and not
appropriate is not sufficient. There is no discussion whatsoever in the
impugned order to justify these reasons. In fact, the vigilance report
as we have discussed above, would indicate that the documents from
the paternal side of the petitioner's father were taken into
consideration. Further there is no comments in regard to the vigilance
enquiries as conducted in regard to the validity certificates issued to
the other family members, than the father.
11. In our opinion, the approach of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee in the present case is totally casual to say the least. The
reasoning as set out are thoroughly unjustified to discard the caste
claim of the petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of
such reasons, as referred above could not have discarded the caste
validity certificates granted to four of the near relatives has no basis.
In fact we are pains to note that there was no material before the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
Caste Security Committee which can lead to any inference that each
of the vigilance enquiries in cases where the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has granted caste validity certificate to the petitioner's
father, sister and uncle were in any manner flawed.
12. As regards the description / nomenclature as referred in
the school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father, when we asked
the learned special counsel to take instructions and make a
statement as to whether there was any "Mannarvarlu" caste or tribe in
existence, so that it can be said that the petitioner does not belong to
the tribe in question, the answer to the learned special counsel was
that there is no other "Mannarvarlu" caste as sought to be referred to
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to reject the claim of the petitioner.
If this be the case, the petitioner would be justified in criticizing the
observations as made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which
are purely on the description / nomenclature of the tribe to refer
"Mannarvarlu" instead of "Mannervarlu", in vernacular in the school
leaving certificate issued to the petitioner's father.
13. Mr.Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in case of
Devika S. Gangawane vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition
No.7305 of 2014 dated 27th January, 2015) to contend that the Caste
Scrutiny Committee in the present case could not have discarded the
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
evidence which was presented in the form of caste validity certificate
granted to the petitioner's father, real brother, real sister and real
uncle. Mr.Mendadkar would also rely on the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in case of Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif
Bedre & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition
No.6614 of 2016 decided on 19th July, 2016. In this decision the
Division Bench in paragraph 12 referring to the decision in Apoorva
d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee &
Ors., 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 has come to the conclusion that the
recourse to the affinity test can be one of the test if any other
conclusive material was not available. In the present case, in our
opinion, there was sufficient material available in the form of caste
validity certificate granted to the petitioner's father, brother, sister and
the real uncle of the petitioner. Thus the reasons as recorded by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order that these four vital
documents cannot be considered are completely unjustified in the
absence of any material that the said certificates were issued by the
scrutiny committee without jurisdiction, or were obtained by fraud or
were so palpably illegal that they cannot be accepted/referred in law.
In our opinion if such reasoning is accepted which is without there
being any basis then the entire sanctity in the whole process
undertaken in issuing such caste validity certificates would be lost.
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 28/09/2017
wpst25738-17
The validity certificates issued by following a lawful procedure cannot
be tinkered in the manner. The law in this regard is well settled. There
is no whisper of any fraud being played by the real relatives of the
petitioner to obtain those caste validity certificates. Further it is also
not the case of the respondents that the committee lacked jurisdiction
to issue such caste validity certificates to the said near relatives of the
petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that some other
vital documents are discarded by the earlier Caste Scrutiny
Committee in granting the caste validity certificates to the said near
relatives of the petitioner. (See - Raju R. Vasave vs. Mahesh D.
Bhiwapurkar & Ors., 2008(9) SCC 54.
14. In the light of above discussion, the only decision we can
take is we allow the present petition. We accordingly quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 29th August, 2017 passed by the
respondent no.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee. We direct the
respondent no.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee to grant a caste validity
certificate to the petitioner, forthwith, on receipt of an authenticated
copy of this order.
15. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to
costs.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
