Bombay High Court
Seema Narayan Salunke vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 15 February, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Amit B. Borkar
rsk 1 6-WP-4571-11.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4571 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2016
Seema Narayan Salunke ..Petitioner
V/s.
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee ..Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4578 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2016
Sheetal Narayan Salunke ..Petitioner
V/s.
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee & Anr. ..Respondents
----
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioners.
Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. A. A. Garge for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AMIT BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15 FEBRUARY 2022.
P. C.
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
The Petitioners claim to be belonging to Thakur-
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
Scheduled Tribe. By impugned order, the said claim has been
2022.02.17
17:01:44 +0530
rsk 2 6-WP-4571-11.doc
rejected and the Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the
Petitioners has been invalidated.
2. While invalidating the certificate, it is seen from the
impugned order, that the Scrutiny Committee has given cryptic
reasons as to why these validity certificates issued in favour of
Vijay, real brother, Pramila, real sister and Suresh, cousin cannot
be relied upon. The Scrutiny Committee did consider these
validity certificates but applying particularly, the law laid down in
Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.5308/2008 refused to rely upon these validity
certificates. The Scrutiny Committee reasoned that there was
some additional evidence, which created doubt about the social
status of the Petitioners and that evidence was in the nature of
some documents, as said by the Scrutiny Committee, were not
available for scrutiny by the Committee which issued validity
certificates to Vijay, Pramila and Suresh.
3. If the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the
validity certificates issued to Vijay, Pramila and Suresh did not
provide any trustworthy evidence in support of the Tribe claim of
the Petitioners, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have taken
decision regarding issuance of process for cancellation of the
rsk 3 6-WP-4571-11.doc
validity certificates of the said three relatives of Petitioners, but
the Scrutiny Committee did not do so.
4. The Scrutiny Committee also did not consider the
documents of pre-constitutional period standing in the name of
Piran Chaitram Salunke, paternal uncle of the Petitioners,
Chindu Fakira, grandfather of the Petitioners, Fakira Natthu,
great grandfather of the Petitioners and Narayan Chaitram
Salunkhe, father of the Petitioners. These documents had the
entries of the dates of 30/5/1945, 1/1/1945, 13/6/1949 and
17/8/1946 respectively which were of the pre-constitutional era
and all of them showed the social status of the persons in whose
names the documents are standing, to be that of "Thakur". It
seems from the impugned order that these documents are not
considered properly by the Scrutiny Committee and only a
passing reference has been made in respect of them. It is well
settled law that the pre-constitutional documents have greater
probative value and therefore, these documents could not have
been given casual treatment by the Scrutiny Committee, which in
our considered opinion has been meted out to them by the
Scrutiny Committee, albeit in ignorance of the settled principles
of the law. Had been these documents been considered properly
in light of the validity certificates issued in favour of Vijay,
Pramila and Suresh, some different result might have been
produced in the matter.
rsk 4 6-WP-4571-11.doc
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that well
settled principles of law as laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale
vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.
2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 which has been followed in the case of
Rajesh Anandrao Rodge vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors. Writ Petition
No.2300/2017 decided on 7/9/2020 by Nagpur Bench were not
properly considered by the Scrutiny Committee. We hope that if
reliance is placed on these judgments by the Petitioners, the
Scrutiny Committee shall deal with them and give due
consideration to these cases.
6. In the result, we are of the view that the impugned
order cannot be sustained in law and is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter requires fresh consideration and therefore it is
remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration in
accordance with law and preferably within a period of 3 months
from the date of appearance of the Petitioners before the Scrutiny
Committee. The Petitioners shall appear before the Scrutiny
Committee on 21/2/2022. The Petitioners are at liberty to
produce before the Scrutiny Committee additional documents, if
any.
7. Interim relief granted by this Court on 21/10/2013
shall continue till the claim of the Petitioners is decided by the
rsk 5 6-WP-4571-11.doc
Scrutiny Committee and if the decision is adverse to the
Petitioners it shall continue for further period of 4 weeks from
the date of said order.
8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. All
pending Civil Applications are disposed of in terms of the final
order.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
