Ankit S/O Eknath Nadge vs The Schedule Tribe Caste ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4812 Bom

                                          1                         29.WP 3296.2021.odt



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


                  WRIT PETITION NO. 3296 OF 2021


 Ankit S/o. Eknath Nadge,
 Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student,
 R/o. At & Post-Saramsarpura, Achalpur,
 Tah. Achalpur, Dist. - Amravati                               ... Petitioner

                  .. Versus ..

 The Schedule Tribe Caste
 Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
 through its Member Secretary
 and Deputy Director, Sanna
 Building, Opp. Govt. Rest House,
 Camp Amravati - 444 601                                     ...Respondents

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
 Shri N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         CORAM                     : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                     SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 02/05/2022 PRONOUNCED ON: 05/05/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

2. The petitioner claims to belong to 'Halbi' Schedule

Tribe. The Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue, Achalpur had issued

a Caste Certificate to the petitioner as belongs to 'Halbi'. The

petitioner has completed B.E Course (Mechanical) from College

of Engineering run by Marathwada Mitra Mandal, Kurvey Nagar,

Pune. The petitioner had sent his Caste Claim for verification to

the respondent-Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee (in short, ' the Committee') through the College

alongwith relevant documents and validity certificates. As his

caste claim was pending since long, he filed a Writ Petition

bearing No. 2585/2020 before this Court, in which, the directions

were issued to decide the caste claim within 3 months, inspite of

it, the caste claim was not decided and thereafter, the petitioner

constrained to file a Contempt Petition bearing No. 151/2021

before this Court. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition,

the respondent - Committee invalidated the caste claim of the

petitioner. Presently, the petitioner is challenging the order dated

22/07/2021 of the respondent - Committee invalidating the caste

claim of the petitioner.

3 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

although there are several validity certificates placed on record,

the respondent - Committee without any reason, discarded the

same.

4. The petitioner further submits that the 'Halbi'

Schedule Tribe is recognized as Schedule Tribe in the State of

Maharashtra and included at Sr. No. 19 in the Constitutional

Schedule Tribe Order, 1950. The show cause notice was sent to

the petitioner alongwith the copy of the Police Vigilence Report

dated 09/05/2018 by the respondent - Committee seeking

explanation on the said report. The petitioner submitted the

detailed reply on the same, stating that, as Police Vigilence in its

report came up with some 'Koshti' documents, they are not from

the petitioner's family and therefore, there is no relation with

these documents and thus the said documents cannot be relied

upon. There are 5 validities in the family of the petitioner, which

the petitioner placed before the respondent - Committee.

5. The petitioner submits that the respondent -

Committee has erred in invalidating the caste claim of the

petitioner for 'Halba/Halbi' Schedule Tribe Category. The

4 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

findings recorded by the respondent - Committee are based upon

totally irrelevant consideration and factors. It is not the case of

the respondent - Committee that the documents placed on record

are bogus, false, non-existent or fabricated. All the documents

are pertaining to the period prior to 1950 and onwards,

unequivocally and undisputedly indicate the claim of the

petitioner as 'Halba/Halbi' Schedule Tribe. When the documents

on record conclusively establish that the petitioner belongs to

'Halba/Halbi' Schedule Tribe, then it is not permissible for the

respondent - Committee to go into affinity test and to reject the

claim of the petitioner. The Committee failed to appreciate that

the petitioner originally hails from Achalpur city which is border

area of Melghat and is earmarked for 'Halba/Halbi' Tribals in

the map of the Tribal area prepared by the State Government of

Maharashtra. The respondent - Committee considered the

irrelevant documents and has not given consideration to the

genuine documents and also validity certificates which are issued

in the family. The allegation is that the documents showing caste

as 'Koshti' was suppressed by the applicant/petitioner. However,

as those documents do not belong to the petitioner's family, then

there is no question of suppression. The oldest documents in

5 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

respect of the petitioner's grandfather and great great grandfather

are of 1920, 1929 and 1930 onwards showing the caste as

'Halbi'. There are 5 validities in the petitioner's family in

respect of blood relatives. The petitioner is relying upon the

following citations in support of his contentions;

i) Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisioinal Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401,

ii) Priya Parate V/s. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, reported in (2013), Mh.L.J. 180,

iii) Kum. Arya Vaibhav Umbarje V/s. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 3735 of 2022, decided on 21/03/2022,

iv) Bharat Bhagwant Tayade V/s. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 11617 of 2017, decided on 15/03/2022,

v) Saurabh Ashok Nikam V/s. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 241 of 2022, decided on 06/01/2022,

vi) Shubham Sanjay Nandanwar V/s. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amaravati, 2021(1) Mh.L.J. 379,

vii) Anita Atmaram Gaikwad V/s. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave Appeal (C) No. 23081/2010, decided on 16/04/2013.

6 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

6. As against this, Shri N.R. Patil, learned Assistant

Government Pleader supports the order of the respondent -

Committee and submits that as there is 'Koshti' Caste shown of

the relatives of the petitioner, the order passed by the respondent

- Committee is perfectly justified and no intervention is called

for.

7. We heard both the parties at length and gone through

the documents placed on record and order passed by the

respondent - Committee. The petitioner has placed on record the

following documents;

 Sr.No.                 Particulars of Documents                       Date

 i)        Copy of School Record of the petitioner                  03-06-2022
 ii)       Copy of School Record of the petitioner's                04-07-1969
           father
 iii)      Copy of Birth Register of the petitioner's               19-01-1920
           great      great    grandfather    (Kisan      Vald
           Hiraman Halbi)
 iv)       Copy of School Record of the petitioner                  04-11-1929
           Grandfather         (Uttam        Kisan      father
           Hiraman).
 v)        Copy of School Record of the petitioner                  01-03-1930
           Grandfather (Pandurang Kisan Nadge)





                                     7                       29.WP 3296.2021.odt



 vi)       Copy of Akhiv Patrika of the petitioner         24-07-1945
           Grandfather (Pandurang Kisan Uttam
           Kisan, Gopal Kisan, Govinda Kisan and
           Madhurabai)
 vii)      Copy of School Record of the petitioner         04-07-1969
           father (Eknath Pandurang Nadge)
 viii)     Copy of order passed by this Court in Writ      01-09-2015
           Petition No. 3063/2002 along with validity      28-10-2015

certificate in the petitioner Real Cousin Uncle (Niwruti Shankarrao Nadge)

ix) Copy of order passed by this Court in Writ 01-09-2015 Petition No. 3064/2002 along with validity 30-10-2015 certificate in the petitioner Real Cousin Uncle (Ramchandra Shankarrao Nadge)

x) Copy of order passed by this Court in Writ 11-01-2016 Petition No. 3751/2003 along with validity 08-03-2016 certificate in the petitioner Real Cousin Brother (Atul Madhukarrao Nadge)

xi) Copy of order passed by this Court, Order/ 07-04-2016 Judgment reported in 2017(7) All MR - 11-07-2016 366 along with validity certificate in the petitioner Real Cousin Brother (Arun Madhukar Nadge)

xii) Copy of order passed by this Court in Writ 05-10-2018 Petition No. 5859/2003 along with validity 20-11-2018 certificate in the petitioner Real Cousin Brother (Shubham Niwruti Nadge)

8 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

8. From these documents, it can be seen that the High

Court had issued a direction, in respect of 5 blood relatives from

paternal side of the petitioner, to Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee (the respondent - Committee) to issue

validity certificates. However, the respondent - Committee now

raises a doubt in respect of said the validity certificates. The

judgments of this Court have attained finality and are binding on

all the sub-ordinate authorities. Thus, the respondent - Committee

has no authority to express any doubt about the correctness of the

said validity certificates and reject it. As held in Apoorva

Nichale case (supra) in para 9 of the said case, which read as

follows,

"9......... the matter pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore, where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same statis to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier

9 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and it entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The caste scrutiny committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner."

9. In the present petition, the facts discloses that there

were directions issued to the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee for issuing the Tribe Validity Certificates to

Nivrutti Shankarrao Nadge, Ramchandra Shankarrao Nadge,

Arun Madhukarrao Nadge, Atul Madhukarrao Nagade and

Shubham Nivrutti Nadge, the paternal relatives of the petitioner,

and as per these directions, the said Committee had issued

validity certificates to the above said relatives of the petitioner.

Thus, now, the respondent - Committee has disregarded and

disobeyed the binding judgments of this Court. Apart from this,

the oldest documents placed on record is of 1920 which is

abstract of Birth Register of the petitioner's great great

grandfather Kisan Vald Hiraman Halbi. The entry is of

10 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

19/01/1920 wherein the Kisan Vald Hiraman is shown as 'Halbi'.

Thus being the oldest entry of 'Halbi', the heirs of the said Kisan

definitely would belong to 'Halbi' only.

10. The underlying principle is that the paternal relatives

come under the same caste, as they are having common ancestror

on the basis of their consanguinity. The extent of claim of the

petitioner's relatives is a conclusive factor. No authority can

come to the conclusion that a paternal relation belongs to one

community and other paternal relation can be considered to

belong to some other community. This is against the principle of

consanguinity. As held in Apoorva Nichale case (supra), if the

caste claim of a candidate as belonging to Schedule Tribe has

been validated by the Committee, then the other close relatives

can not be denied the validation of the Tribe Certificate. The

respondent - Committee on the basis of the entry of 'Koshti' in

respect of one Kisan and one Pandurang in the document

collected by Vigilence Cell held that they are not Schedule Tribe

and these entries are suppressed by the petitioner. There is a

doubt whether these persons whose caste are shown as 'Koshti',

are really related to the petitioner. Though, it is submitted that

11 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

Pandurang Kisan Koshti delivered a son by name Wasudeo, the

genealogy does not show any Wasudeo, son born to Pandurang.

At any rate, the oldest document of 1920 showing caste 'Halbi'

which is in respect of great great grandfather of the petitioner and

therefore, the said entry being predominant entry will prevail

over all other entries as it has great probative value.

11. In the result, we are of the considered opinion that

the respondent - Committee can not have expressed a doubt on

the genuineness of the validity certificates issued to the 5 persons

in blood relations of the petitioner. The respondent - Committee

might not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner as it belongs

to 'Halbi' Schedule Tribe. Thus, the petition is deserve to be

allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The petition is allowed.

2. The impugned order dated 22/07/2021 is hereby quashed

and set aside.

3. The respondent - Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue Tribe Validity

12 29.WP 3296.2021.odt

Certificate to the petitioner showing that he belongs to

'Halbi' Schedule Tribe, within 4 weeks from the receipt of

authenticated copy of this order.

4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

5. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to both the

parties.

6. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of the order.

[SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.] [SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]

B.T.Khapekar