Bombay High Court
Sanjay Gangayya Gattu Nagpur vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ... on 9 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp4579.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4579 OF 2004
Shri Sanjay s/o Gangayya Gattu,
aged : adult, occupation : service,
r/o c/o Shri Shende, Plot No.238,
Bezanbagh, Model Town, Nagpur,
Taluq and District Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Taluq
and District Nagpur.
2) Municipal Corporation, Nagpur,
Taluq and District Nagpur.
3) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-400 032. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Smt. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for
petitioner.
Ms. T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 3.
----------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 9, 2018
2 wp4579.04
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,
J.) :
By this petition, petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of
the order dated 2/7/2004 passed by respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
2) The petitioner claims to belong to caste "Mannewar", which is
included in the Scheduled Tribe category in the State of Maharashtra.
The petitioner by order dated 6/11/1996 came to be appointed as a Meter
Reader in the respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation. The caste claim of
the petitioner was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for verification.
The Scrutiny Committee on going through the documents relied upon by
the petitioner observed that the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of
petitioner shows his caste as `(Telgu) Mannewar' and the birth extract of
the petitioner's father, which is a pre-constitutional document, reveals his
caste as `Telaga Darji'. The Scrutiny Committee held that the information
given by petitioner regarding socio-cultural traits, characteristics and
customs does not match with those of Mannewar, sub-tribe of Gond
(Scheduled Tribe).
3) Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently argued that the respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dadaji
alias Dina vs. Sukhdeobabu and others {(1980) 1 SCC 621}, which is
3 wp4579.04
no more a good law. In that case, it is held that only the `Mana'
community having affiliation with Gond tribe will fall within the scope of
the entry in Constitutional Order.
4) Ms. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos.1 and 3, has not disputed the legal position.
5) The controversy involved in this petition no longer remains
res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra and others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
earlier two judgments - one in the case of Dina vs. Narayan Singh,
reported in (1968) 38 ELR 212 and another in the case of Dadaji vs.
Sukhdeobabu, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 621 stand impliedly overruled
by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others, reported in (2001) 1
SCC 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in State of Maharashtra and
others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (cited supra) that each of the tribes
specified in Entry 18 must be deemed to be a separate tribe and not sub
tribe of "Gond".
6) In view of this position, the order passed by the respondent
no.1 Scrutiny Committee holding that petitioner does not belong to
"Mannewar" (Scheduled Tribe) and he has failed to establish affinity with
4 wp4579.04
"Gond" cannot be sustained. The Scrutiny Committee has to examine the
case of the petitioner for `Mannewar' - Scheduled Tribe category, which is
not a sub-tribe of `Gond'.
7) In the result -
(i) the writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 2/7/2004 passed by the
respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee to verify and
scrutinize the caste claim of the petitioner afresh within a period of six
months from the date of appearance of the petitioner, in the light of the
decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Mana Adim
Jamat Mandal (supra).
(iv) The petitioner to appear before the respondent no.1 Scrutiny
Committee on 12/2/2018.
(v) Interim order of this Court dated 6/10/2004 to continue till
the decision of the respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee.
(vi) No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
