Bombay High Court
Pavan Ashok Takhur vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 October, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 wp 10404.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10404 OF 2021
Pavan Ashok Takur,
Age : 21 Years, Occu. : Education,
R/o At Post, Malpur Road,
Thakurwadi, Dondiacha,
Tq. Sindhkheda, Dist. Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad Division, Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary.
3. Commissioner State C.E.T. Cell,
Maharashtra 8th Floor, Excise
Building, CET Cell Govt. Dental
College, St. Goerge's Hospital
Campus, Fort, Mumbai. .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of parties taken up for final hearing.
2 wp 10404.21
2. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, not a single contra entry exists in any record. The
documents record the tribe as Thakur in the school record of the
petitioner's grandfather, cousin grandfather. All entries in the
school record of the petitioner's father, great grandfather are
consistently recording tribe as Thakur. Only on the ground of
area restriction the claim has been invalidated. The learned
counsel submits that, affinity test is not litmus test. Reliance is
placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court
in a case of Anand Vs. Committee reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113.
3. Mr. Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondents/State submits that, the petitioner is not
resident of notified area. The petitioner failed in the affinity test.
All these aspects have been considered by the Committee.
4. The petitioner has relied on the following documents.
v- nLrnsotkpk nLr,sot/kkjdkps vtZnkj Tkkrhph uksan.kh
dza izdkj uko ;kaP;k"kh uksan fnukad
ukrs
1- "kkys; iqjkok iou v"kksd Bkdwj vtZnkj fganw Bkdwj 15-06-2009
2- tUe iqjkok v"kksd fgjkyky oMhy Bkdwj tUe rkjh[k
t;jke 16-04-1968
3- "kkys; iqjkok v"kksd fgjkyky oMhy Bkdwj 31-07-1974
t;jke
4- "kkys; iqjkok fgjkyky t;jke vktksck Bkdwj 21-06-1943
Bkdwj
5- "kkys; iqjkok "kkarhyky t;jke pqyr Bkdwj 28-08-1948
3 wp 10404.21
lq;Zoa"kh vktksck
6- "kkys; iqjkok lqjrflax t;jke pqyr Bkdwj 30-07-1955
lq;Zoa"kh vktksck
7- e`R;q iqjkok t;jke dsljk Bkdwj iatksck fganw Bkdwj e`R;q fnukad
02-06-1959
5. The aforesaid documents have been verified by the
vigilance. The vigilance did not find any overwriting, nor any
manipulation. Consistently since the year 1943 in the school
record of the grandfather, cousin grandfather and father of the
petitioner the tribe is recorded as Thakur.
6. The Apex Court in a case of Anand Vs. Committee (supra) has
held that, the affinity test is not litmus test. It is only
corroborative evidence.
6. In view of the consistent evidence on record, the impugned
judgment is quashed and set aside. The Committee shall issue
validity certificates to the petitioner of Thakur (Scheduled Tribe)
immediately.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/Oct.21
