Bombay High Court
Madhuri D/O Ramesh Talewar And ... vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 12 August, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Anil S. Kilor
1mca399-21.odt
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.399 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2021 (D)
(Madhuri d/o Ramesh Talewar and another Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its chairman Nagpur and others)
_______________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for applicants
Ms K.R. Deshpande, AGP for the State / Non-applicant
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 22nd JULY, 2022.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 12 th AUGUST, 2022.
1. This is a review application, seeking review of the order
dated 05.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.804 of 2021,
rejecting the writ petition preferred by the applicants against the
order invalidating their tribe claim as belonging to Chattri ¼NVªh½ -
Scheduled Tribe, by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee.
2. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition has recorded
following reasons:
"8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the
reference to Chattri (NVªh½ prior to 1970 was always Chatri (N=h½
1mca399-21.odt
and therefore it is not possible for a candidate to have
documents prior to 1950 which will show entry as Chattri
(NVªh½. Such a sweeping contention cannot be accepted. It is
now settled that the entries in the Scheduled Tribe order and
the list will have to be read with the spelling as it is. Such lists
are carefully drawn and spellings and punctuations are result of
application of mind. It is not for the Court to substitute the
entries by embarking upon sociological and anthropological
research. The State Government, as mentioned in the
Government Resolution dated 24 April 1985, constituted a
committee which held deliberations. Even if it was permissible
to hold an enquiry, based only on self serving statement in the
Petition, with no data, it is not possible to us to declare and
hold that prior to 1970 all the documents showed the entry as
Chatri (NVªh½, as such observations will have widespread
ramifications.
9. In view of this position, since admittedly Petitioners
have no documents in their possession as Chattri (NVªh½, no
perversity can be found in the view taken by the Scrutiny
Committee."
3. We have heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
applicants/petitioners and Ms. K.S. Deshpande, learned AGP for
the respondent/scrutiny committee.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is
no caste like 'Chatri' ¼N=h½ in Maharashtra and therefore, the only
presumption which can be drawn is that the term 'Chattri' ¼NVªh½
has been wrongly spelt in the Caste Certificate issued by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Nagpur, where inadvertently for Chattri ¼NVªh½,
Chatri ¼N=h½, got typed.
1mca399-21.odt
5. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the caste
'Chattri' ¼NVªh½ prior to 1970 was always 'Chatri' ¼N=h½ which came to
be changed in the State of Maharashtra as 'Chattri' ¼NVªh½ while
enacting the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act of 1976").
6. It is submitted that the Authoritative Text was published on
09.07.1990 in which the original order was translated in to
Marathi. He therefore, submits that it is a mistake in translation
'N=h' as 'NVªh'. For this purpose, he has taken us through various
Government Official Documents relating to the Notified
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
to show the differences in nomenclature of the same caste in these
two States, to impress that it is a mistake in translation.
7. He points out that, in the list of State of Madhya Pradesh the
caste is written as 'N=h' in vernacular at Serial No.20. Whereas,
while writing in English, it is written as 'Chattri', at page No.158 of
the paper-book.
8. He points out that, at the same time, in the list of State of
Maharashtra in vernacular it is written as 'N=h' at Serial No.22.
Whereas, in English as 'Chattri', at page No.162 of paper-book. He
has taken us through various similar entries in the official
documents, filed along with the application.
1mca399-21.odt
9. He further submits that, where the same caste was spelt
differently and when it is clear that there is no caste like Chatri
¼N=h½, in Maharashtra, we cannot attach the undue importance to
spelling in English, otherwise it will nullify the intention of the
parliament and the effect of it would be deleting the tribe from the
list of the Scheduled Tribes. He therefore, submits that, the entry
has to be read in a manner which is consistent with the intention of
the parliament. For this purpose, he has placed a reliance on
following judgments of the Supreme Court of India and High
Courts: 1) Orissa v/s Dasarathi Meher1 2) B. Basavalingappa v/s
D.Munichinnappa2, 3) Divya Suresh Naidu v/s The Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division,
Amravati3, 4) Sanjay Somawar S/o Late Shri Bhalchand Somawar
V/s State of Chhattisgarh and others 4 5) Madiyankala vs Tahsildar
and Election Officer, Taluk Board Elections, Mudigere and
another5
10. On the other hand, the learned AGP strongly opposes the
application and submits that no case is made out by the applicant
for review as there is neither any mistake nor any error apparent on
the face of the record.
1 (2018) 18 SCC 176
2 AIR 1965 SC 1269
3 W.P. 6229/2018 dt. 30.6.2020 (Bombay High Court)
4 W.P.(S)No.424/2016 dt. 30.10.2017 (Chhattisgarh High Court)
5 1968 SCC OnLine Kar 196 (Mysore High Court)
1mca399-21.odt
11. Ms. Deshpande, has drawn attention of this Court to the
Gazette publication dated 20.09.1976 of the Scheduled caste and
Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, which received
an accent of the President on 18.09.1976. She points out the
relevant entries relating to caste Chattri ¼NVªh½. She further points
out from the list of Madhyapradesh at Serial No.20, that the said
caste is spelt as 'Chattri' in English whereas, in vernacular as N=h . It
is submitted that in the list of Maharashtra State at serial No.22, it
is spelt as 'Chattri' in English and in vernacular as 'NVªh'.
12. She further points out the Government order issued by the
Tribal Development Department of State of Maharashtra on
24.04.1985, that, there are non tribal caste like 'Maru Chatri' ¼ek:
N=h½ or 'Meru Chatri' ¼es: N=h½ and some people of the said castes
take advantage of nomenclature and pronunciation of the word
Chatri and claim benefits as 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribes. Whereas,
there is no caste in the Scheduled Tribes like Chatri ¼N=h½.
13. She further submits that tribe claim of the applicants was
rightly rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the
applicants do not belong to Chattri ¼NVªh½, in absence of any
supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, she prays for
rejection of the present application.
1mca399-21.odt
14. We perused the record and the documents filed by the
applicants and Scrutiny Committee.
15. The Act of 1976 shows that in the State of Maharashtra,
caste Chattri ¼NVªh½, is recognized as 'Scheduled Tribe'.
16. The Government Order dated 24.04.1985 gives information
about the existing Scheduled Tribes and similar tribes as per the list
of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and the caste of
non-tribal groups who take advantage of their nomenclature to call
themselves as 'Tribal'. It clear from the Government Order dated
24.04.1985 that there is no caste Chatri ¼N=h½, in Scheduled Tribes.
However, there are non-tribal caste like 'Maru Chatri' ¼ek: N=h½ or
'Meru Chatri' ¼es: N=h½, who sometimes take advantage of
nomenclature and the pronunciation of word 'Chatri' 'N=h' to
obtain benefits of Scheduled Tribes.
17. In the above referred backdrop, the submission of the
learned counsel for the applicants that it is a mistake of translation
and the caste Chattri ¼NVªh½ and Chatri ¼N=h½ are one and the same
cannot be accepted. Further the submission of the applicants that,
while recording the caste of the applicants by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, inadvertently, it was recorded as 'Chatri' ¼N=h½ instead of
'Chattri' ¼NVªh½, cannot be accepted.
1mca399-21.odt
18. Thus, in the light of the above referred observations, we do
not find any error committed by this Court in dismissing the Writ
Petition vide order dated 05.08.2021, which is sought to be
reviewed by this application.
19. Moving to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
applicants. In the case of State of Orissa v/s Dasarathi Meher
(supra), the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
in the light of the fact that there is no community by word 'Kuli' in
the State of Orissa and therefore, it was observed that if the caste
'Kuli' is not included in 'Kulis' the net result would be that deleting
the tribe from the list of the Scheduled Tribes.
20. In this case, as we have already observed that there are non-
tribes like 'Maru Chatri' ¼ek: N=h½ and 'Meru Chatri' ¼es: N=h½ who
sometimes try to take advantage of word 'Chatri' ¼N=h½, to obtain
benefits as tribe, the judgments in the case of B. Basavalingappa
(supra), Divya Suresh Naidu (supra) and Madiyankala (supra), are
distinguishable on facts and are of no help to the applicants.
21. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present
application.
The application is rejected.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed byNIRANJAN
DOMAJI THAWRE
Signing Date:12.08.2022
nd.thawre 15:15
