Bombay High Court
Babarao Shesherao Pete And ... vs Union Of India, Thr. Principal ... on 23 November, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, M. W. Chandwani
1/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (STAMP) NO. 4853 OF 2021
Babarao Sheshrao Pete and another vs. Union of India and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mohnish Thorat, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms. Ketki Joshi, Addl. G. P. for respondent State.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 23/11/2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. It is submitted that because of framing of
some guidelines by the State of Maharashtra vide its
Government Resolution dated 24/04/1985 in
particular the guidelines relating to the place of origin
of the persons belonging to Mahadev-Koli, Schedule
Tribes, the petitioners are not being issued any tribe
certificate by the competent authority. According to
him, these guidelines are illegal as they amount to
imposing area restrictions upon the persons desirous
of obtaining caste/tribe certificate from the
competent authority, when the area restrictions have
been removed long back.
KOLHE
2/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
3. It is also his submission that there was a
Report submitted by Dajiba Parbat Patil, Committee
who was Deputy Chair Person, Legislative Council in
the year 1986, making various recommendations, one
of them being of devising an easier and less
complicated system of issuance of Schedule Tribe
certificate and cancellation of the Government
Publication, Tribes of Maharashtra, 1982, with a
direction to not use it as a reference book.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader
for the State submits that this petition is not
maintainable as what is being espoused on the
pretext of public interest litigation is a personal
grievance of the petitioners, the grievance that the
petitioners are not being issued any tribe certificate
because of the guidelines prescribed in G. R. dated
24/04/1985. She also submits that it is for the
Government to decide to accept or reject the
recommendations of any Committee and the person
like the petitioners cannot seek any mandamus to the
State for accepting those recommendations. She
further submits that after the 1986 Report of Dajiba
Patil Committee, new Act, following the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development,
reported in AIR 1994 SC 94 came into force and the
KOLHE
3/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
Act is called as "The Caste Certificate(Issuance and
Verification) Laws in Maharashtra" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 2000) which prescribes a
detailed procedure for issuance of caste/tribe
certificates and their validity and therefore, now the
Dajiba Patil Committee Report has lost it's relevance.
5. We are of the view that there is great
substance in the submissions of learned Additional
Government Pleader and no merit in the arguments
of learned counsel for the petitioners for several
reasons.
6. Firstly, the petitioners on the pretext of
filing a public interest litigation are basically pursuing
their own cause, which is evident from the fact that
petitioners are personally aggrieved by non-issuance
of tribe certificates to them, which is the submission
of their learned counsel. Of-course, in the body of
petition, no such specific averment is made. But, the
real intention behind this petition has now been
revealed by learned counsel for the petitioners, which
is to achieve a private purpose. For such a purpose,
the petitioners would always be at liberty to take
recourse to an appropriate remedy, if advised. But,
under no circumstances, the petitioners would be
KOLHE
4/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
entitled to raise the issue through a public interest
litigation, which is really an issue of private nature.
7. Secondly, the guidelines contained in the
G.R. dated 24/04/1985, which dwell upon the places
of origin of Mahadev Koli tribals do not impose any
area restrictions for deciding the tribe claims. They
are only in the nature of the predominant presence of
Mahadev Koli tribals in certain districts like Pune,
Thane, Raigad, Nashik and Ahemadnagar. These
guidelines only provide information about dominant
presence of Mahadev Koli tribals in these districts.
They do not say that except for these districts,
Mahadev Koli tribals are not found anywhere else.
Therefore, the argument that these guidelines are
illegal does not hold any water. If there is any person
who is aggrieved by some or the other interpretation
of these guidelines by a particular scrutiny
committee, he would be always at liberty to approach
this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Thirdly, the Dajiba Patil Committee Report,
with coming into force of the Act of 2000, has lost its
relevance. Even otherwise, it is for the State
Government to take a decision regarding acceptance
or part acceptance or rejection or part rejection of
KOLHE
5/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
recommendations of any Committee. The petitioners
have not placed on record any material showing that
the aforestated report has been expressly rejected by
the State Government.
9. There is also an argument about making
of some representation to the Government by the
petitioners to air their grievances. But, we find that
the representation relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners (page 426) is not the one which is
sent by the petitioners. The petitioners have also not
contended that what is stated in the representation
sent by some different persons is endorsed to by them
and that their grievance is the same. This would
provide additional reason to us to reject the petition,
the reason of the petition having been filed without
there being any cause of action insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned, there being no rejection of
their representation.
10. On the above grounds, we find that this
petition is not maintainable and in fact is an abuse of
the process of Court and therefore, it is necessary that
the petition is dismissed with some costs.
11. The petition stands dismissed with costs
of Rs.1/- which shall be paid by the petitioners within
KOLHE
6/6 34-PIL 4853.2021
two weeks from the date of the order; failing which
the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- [Rs.Ten
Thousand only] within next two weeks and failing
which the Registrar (Judicial) shall cause initiation of
appropriate proceedings for recovery of final costs of
Rs.10,000/- by treating them as arrears of revenue.
(M.W.CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
Signing Date:23.11.2022
20:25
KOLHE
