Bombay High Court
Dhanashri Sunil Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 17 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
921Tokre
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 WRIT PETITION NO.4696 OF 2021
DHANASHRI SUNIL SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr S R Barlinge
AGP for Respondents State: Mr U. S. Badakh
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 17th March, 2021.
ORDER:
1. Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel submits that caste claim of the
petitioner as Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe is invalidated. The learned
counsel submits that real uncle of the petitioner is issued with validity
certificate. Son and daughters of the real uncle of the petitioner namely
Mrunalini, Harshal and Himani were refused validity certificates of Tokre
Koli Scheduled Tribe by the Committee. They filed writ petition bearing
No. 3140 of 2016 before this Court. This Court, under judgment and order
dated 21.11.2017, allowed writ petition No. 3140/2016 and directed the
Committee to issue validity certificates to them. All the contra evidence
which the committee referred in the present case were the subject matter
of consideration before this Court in the said writ petition.
2. The learned A.G.P. submits that old record shows that the
petitioner and his ancestors belong to Koli. Old record of the grandfather
of the petitioner records caste as Koli. Real uncle of the petitioner namely
Pradip Sonawane was issued with validity certificate on the basis of validity
certificate of another person who was not at all related to him. According to
921Tokre
the learned AGP, all the relevant aspects are considered by the committee
while invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also failed
to prove the affinity test.
3. Relationship of the petitioner with Pradip Tryambak Sonawane, real
paternal uncle is not disputed. It is also not disputed Mrunalini, Harshal
and Himani are the son and daughters of real uncle of the petitioner
namely Pradip Sonawane. Caste claims of the son and daughters of
Pradip Sonawane were invalidated by the Committee. The same was
subject matter of consideration before this Court in writ petition No.
3140/2016. While allowing the said writ petition under judgment and
order dated 20.11.202017, this Court observed thus:
"7. The impugned judgment records that the Committee has gone
through the record of the validation proceedings of the tribe claim of
the petitioners' father. It would appear that as per observations of the
Committee in the impugned judgment, these documents were subject
matter of the proceedings before the Committee, Nashik. In the
impugned judgment, it is observed that inspite of the fact that there
were entries of Hindu Koli in the pre-independence documents, still the
validity was given to the father of the petitioners on the basis of validity
given to the cousin grand father and cousin brother of the petitioners'
father.
8. Certainly, one Committee can not enter into the rigmarole of finding
fault of the other Committee. Of-course if certain documents were
suppressed while getting the validity in case of near relative, the said
aspect would be certainly considered by the Committee deciding the
validation proceedings. However, in the present case, all these
documents which are relied in the validation proceedings of the
921Tokre
petitioners were subject matter of validation proceedings of the father
of the petitioners also.
9. It would appear that the document Gao-namuna No.1 of the
grand father of the petitioners records caste as Hindu Koli. At the same
time, the service book of the grand-father of the petitioners record
caste as Tokre-Koli. School record of the father of the petitioners
records caste as Hindu Magaslela and Hindu backward class, meaning
thereby that be belongs to a backward class. All the School record of
the petitioners record caste as Tokre-Koli. Hindu Magaslela would only
mean that he belongs to backward class and no particular caste is
mentioned. All this record was considered while granting validity in
favour of the petitioners father. The cousin grand father of the
petitioners' father is issued with the validity certificate, so also the
cousin brother of the petitioners' father is issued with the validity
certificate of Tokre-Koli - Scheduled Tribe as is observed in para 7 of
the impugned judgment.
10. Even the service book of the real grand father of the petitioners
records caste as Tokre-Koli. The same is also old document. The said
entry in the service book of Tokre-Koli - Scheduled Tribe in case of
grand father of the petitioners is also an old entry. Isolated entry as
against the various entries of Tokre-Koli -Scheduled Tribe may not be
sufficient to invalidate the tribe claim."
4. The validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's paternal
relative is a relevant fact. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in case of Apoorva Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Scrutiny Committee reported in (2010) 6 Mh.L.J. 401. Moreover, all these
contra evidence were considered by this Court while allowing the writ
petition filed by the son and daughters of real uncle of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order qua is quashed and set
921Tokre
aside.
6. The Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of
'Tokre Koli' Scheduled tribe immediately.
7. Writ petition disposed of. No costs.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
JPC
