Shreya D/O Subhash Katole vs The S.T. Caste Certificate ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12845 Bom

                                                                                                WP.293.22+
                                                       1


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                       ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 293/2022 & WRIT PETITION NO.294/2022 W.P.NO. 293/2022

* Prasad s/o Ratnakar Katole Aged about 19 years, occu: student R/o Gokul Nagar, Green Park Colony, Umerkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. ..PETITIONER

versus

1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Member-Secretary and Deputy Director, Sanna Building Opp: Govt. Rest House Camp: Amravati- 444 601.

2)     State Common Entrance Test Cell
Maharashtra State
8th floor, New Excelsior Building
A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort
Mumbai. 400 001 (MS)
Through its Director

3)     The Dean
Indira Gandhi Government Medical College
Mayo Hospital, Central Avenue
Mominpura, Nagpur-440 018.

(Amendment carried out as per court's order dated 29.11.2022) ..RESPONDENTS .................................................................................................................. Mr.Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.A. Madiwale, AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr.N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ................................................................................................................

                                                                                                 WP.293.22+


W.P.294/2022

*      Shreya D/o Subhash Katole
Aged about 18 years, occu: student
R/o At & Po: Fulsawangi, Tq.Mahagaon
Dist. Yavatmal (Presently at Nagpur).                                                 ..PETITIONER

versus

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Member-Secretary
and Deputy Director, Sanna Building
Opp: Govt.Rest House
Camp: Amravati -444 601.                                                              ..RESPONDENT

.................................................................................................................. Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.A. Madiwale, AGP for Respondent ................................................................................................................

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ DATED : 12th December, 2022.

JUDGMENT: (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The common order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on

05.01.2022 invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioners of belonging to

'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, is under challenge. Both the Writ Petitions are

being decided by this common judgment.

3. The Petitioners, by relying upon various pre-Constitutional

documents, claim to belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. While verifying

their tribe claim, the Petitioners relied upon about 35 documents before

WP.293.22+

the Scrutiny Committee. A vigilance enquiry was thereafter conducted

and its report was supplied to the Petitioners. In the said report dated

29.11.2021, reference was made to about 10 documents on which the

Petitioners' response was sought. Two documents of the years 1926 and

1927 of the forefathers had the entry 'Marathi'. The Petitioners

submitted their say on the report of the Vigilance Cell and thereafter the

Scrutiny Committee passed the order dated 05.01.2022. In Paragraph

Nos. 9 and 10 of the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee has

observed that the Petitioners were found to be related to one Anand

Nilkanth Katole and, while verifying the claim of Anand Nilkanth

Katole, it was found that there were some entries with the word

'Koshti'. In the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee has observed

that in some old documents, there was a reference to the word ' Marathi'

and also the fact that the Petitioners were related distinctly to Anand

Nilkanth Katole. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in its judgment delivered in the case of Anand Nilkanth

Katole. It is thereafter that the claim of the Petitioners has been turned

down.

4. Inter alia, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners that in the report of the vigilance cell, no reference was made

to the documents pertaining to Anand Nilkanth Katole and, therefore,

WP.293.22+

the Petitioners were not in a position to put forth their say in that

regard. It was only after perusing the impugned order that they got

knowledge of the fact that the Scrutiny Committee had given due

weightage to those documents. It is urged that if the Petitioners would

have been put to notice that the said adverse material was to be

considered, the Petitioners would have responded to the same. Hence,

for want of proper notice of the adverse material, the Petitioners were

handicapped.

5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the Scrutiny Committee that after following the due

procedure the impugned order came to be passed. The Petitioners were

aware of their relationship with Anand Nilkanth Katole and, therefore,it

could not be said that they had been taken by surprise when the

Scrutiny Committee relied upon his documents. As per the family tree

on record, it was clear that the Petitioners were related to him. It was

further submitted that the decision of this Court rendered in Writ

Petition No.2512/2013, in the case of Anand Nilkanth Katole had been

stayed and hence no reliance could be placed upon the same. It was thus

submitted that no interference was warranted in exercise of writ

jurisdiction.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we have

WP.293.22+

perused the documents on record. It is undisputed that in the report of

the vigilance cell, reference has been made to about 10 adverse

documents on which the say of the Petitioners was called for. There was

no reference to the documents related to Anand Nilkanth Katole and

that the vigilance cell intended to rely upon the same. If the vigilance

cell or the Scrutiny Committee desired to rely upon said documents, the

Petitioners ought to have been made aware of the same. In other words,

the adverse material supplied in the form of documents was replied to

by the Petitioners. A perusal of paragraph 10 of the impugned order

itself indicates that the Committee itself perused the available record

that was present in the office. On the basis of the documents pertaining

to Anand Nilkanth Katole, the Committee has proceeded to invalidate

the Petitioners' claim. We find that the Petitioners ought to have been

put to notice of all the adverse material/documents on which it intended

to consider the Petitioners' claim. The same not having been done, the

impugned order on that count is unsustainable.

7. In so far as the reference to the word ' Marathi' is concerned,

the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to the decision in the

case of Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported

in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 385, wherein the Division Bench has observed that

the word 'Marathi' indicates a language and not any caste. Hence, due

WP.293.22+

weightage was not liable to be given to the said word ' Marathi'. Since

we find that the Petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to

meet all adverse documents that were proposed to be relied, it is not

found necessary to go into this aspect as the Petitioners can raise this

ground before the Scrutiny Committee.

8. We, therefore, find that the impugned order has been

passed without supplying the entire adverse material/documents to the

Petitioners and without seeking their explanation for the same. On that

count, the impugned order is found to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the

order dated 05.01.2022 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings are

remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for granting fresh opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioners. Prior thereto, the Scrutiny Committee shall

supply all material, adverse or otherwise that it seeks to rely upon,

while considering the tribe claim. The Petitioners shall appear before the

Scrutiny Committee on 20th December, 2022, to facilitate such

reconsideration. Since the Petitioners are students, the process of

verification be completed within a period of six weeks from that date.

9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) sahare