Bombay High Court
Nana Gorakhnath Nikam vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 12 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. G. Avachat
1 wp 2153.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2013
Nana S/o Gorakhnath Nikam .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Advocate h/f Shri A. S.
Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2021.
FINAL ORDER :
. The tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur'
(Scheduled Tribe) is invalidated.
2. Mr. Golegaonkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner
submits that, eight members in the family of the petitioner are
issued with the validity certificates of Thakur (S.T.) Not a single
contra entry appears on record. The oldest document of the year
1347 Fasli of the petitioner's ancestor records tribe as Thakur in
the revenue record. The school record of the petitioner's
grandfather demonstrates the tribe as Thakur. The same is of
the year 1966. Even the school record of the petitioner also
demonstrates tribe as Thakur.
3. According to the learned counsel when the close paternal
2 wp 2153.13
relatives are issued with the validity certificate, the same is a
relevant fact. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apporva Vs. State
reported in 2010 (6) Mh. L. J. 401. The learned counsel further
submits that, affinity test is not litmus test. The learned counsel
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Vs.
State reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 . The learned counsel further
submits that, the Committee has not disputed relationship of the
petitioner with the validity holders. In absence of any contra
evidence on record, the Committee has rejected the tribe claim on
the ground of area restriction. The area restriction has been
lifted and the same would not be relevant.
4. Mr. Kale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondents submits that, the genealogy tendered by the
petitioner and genealogy tendered by Rajendra Nikam and Vijay
Nikam i. e. validity holders does not match. The learned A. G. P.
further submits that, the petitioner could not prove the affinity
test. According to the learned A. G. P. the petitioner also does
not belong to the area where Thakur (S.T.) resides. The Thakur
is also found in upper caste.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for respective parties.
6. Upon perusal of the judgment of the scrutiny committee it
does not appear that the committee has disputed the relationship
of the petitioner with the validity holders relied by the petitioner.
3 wp 2153.13
The validity holders are paternal relatives of the petitioner.
Upon perusing the documents placed on record and the vigilance
report conducted by the Committee, there does not appear to be
single contra entry. The school entries since the year 1954 in the
school record of the petitioner's ancestors i. e. grandfather, father
record tribe as Thakur. Even ignoring revenue record, the
entries in the school record of tribe demonstrate same to be
recorded as Thakur since the year 1954 consistently.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Apporva Vs.
State (supra) has observed that the validity granted to the
paternal relatives is relevant fact. It has been also observed by
the Apex Court in the case of Anand Vs. State (supra) that, affinity
test is not litmus test. Considering the validity granted to the
paternal relatives of the petitioner, so also documentary evidence
on record does not depict a single contra entry of caste, the
impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The
Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of
'Thakur' (Scheduled Tribe).
8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
[R. G. AVACHAT, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/March 21
