Mayuri Suresh Narnaware vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10334 Bom

208-J-WP-1517-15                                                        1/6


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1517 OF 2015


Mayuri Suresh Narnaware (aged 19 yrs),
(Occupation : Student - D. Pharm. Final)
Address: "Laxmanrao Deshmukh" Layout,
Behind College Quarters, Katol
(Dist. Nagpur) 441302                                    ... Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
   Nagpur, Through its Member Secretary,
   Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur 440010

2. State of Maharashtra
   Through its Principal Secretary,
   Tribal Development Department,
   Mantralay Extension, Madam Kama Road,
   Mumbai 400 032

3. Directorate of Technical Education,
   Maharashtra State, Through its
   Regional Directorate,
   Joint Director, Technical Education
   Regional Office, Govt. Polytechnic Campus,
   Sadar Bazar, Nagpur 440001                              ... Respondents

Shri S. P. Khare, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D. P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.

               CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : October 07, 2022

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order passed

by the Scrutiny Committee on 21/06/2014 thereby invalidating tribe-

claim of the petitioner of belonging to "Mana" (Scheduled Tribe).

The petitioner claims that she and her forefathers belong to 208-J-WP-1517-15 2/6

"Mana" (Scheduled Tribe). This claim was supported by relying upon

various pre-constitutional documents especially of the years 1924 and

1926 wherein the entry "Mani" was found. After considering the

report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to

invalidate the tribe-claim of the petitioner on the ground that against

the said entry it was not stated that the forefathers belonged to

Scheduled Tribe. The aspect of area restriction was also taken into

consideration. Validity Certificate granted to the petitioner's brother

was discarded on the ground that it was not preceded by any enquiry

by the Vigilance Cell. The order of invalidation is under challenge in

the present writ petition.

2. Shri S. P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that considering the old documents on record having consistent entry

of "Mana/Mani", the Scrutiny Committee ought to have given due

weightage to the same. It was not the case of the Vigilance Cell that

the old entries had been inserted at the behest of the petitioner's

forefathers or that they were responsible for such entries. On the

aspect of affinity of "Mana" (Scheduled Tribe) it was submitted that

with passage of time, a person could not be expected to follow all old

customs and traditions. After considering the probative value of the

old documents, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have accepted the 208-J-WP-1517-15 3/6

claim. Validity certificate was granted to the petitioner's brother and in

the said validity certificate it was stated that this was after considering

all documents and associated facts. Merely because there was

reference to the decision of the Honouable Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.5270/2004, the effect of the said validity certificate was not

watered down. In that regard reference is made to the decisions in

Writ Petition No.491/2019 (Ku. Nayan d/o Bhaskar Chouke vs. The

Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and ors.) dated

16/07/2021 and Writ Petition No.309/2021 (Ku. Pallavi d/o Rajendra

Dardemal vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and ors.) dated

20/07/2022. Since validity certificate had been granted on the basis

of documents available, it could not be said that for want of vigilance

enquiry, the present petitioner was not entitled to benefit of the same.

The learned counsel also invited attention to the decision in Shubham

Sharad Gadamade vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Nagpur and ors. 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 789 and submitted that by following

the law as laid down in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste

Scrutiny Committee No.1 and ors. 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside.

3. Shri D. P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader for 208-J-WP-1517-15 4/6

respondent No.1 at the outset sought time to file return on record. We

however find that the writ petition was admitted in the year 2015 and

there was sufficient time to file such reply thereafter. We therefore

have not accepted such request made on behalf of the respondents.

The learned Additional Government Pleader supported the

order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. According to him after

considering all relevant documents the claim has been invalidated.

Validity Certificate granted to the petitioner's brother was without any

vigilance enquiry and therefore such enquiry conducted in the present

case ought not to be given due weightage. Since the claim has been

dis-allowed after considering all documents on record, there was no

reason to interfere with the said adjudication.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the documents on record. Insofar as the report of the

Vigilance Cell is concerned, it has found that the entries of the years

1924 and 1926 have remark "Mani". The effect of the entry "Mani"

has been considered by the Division Bench in Gitesh s/o Narendra

Ghormare vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nagpur

and ors. 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 933 wherein this Court has held that merely

because the old documents show the entry "Mani" that will not be a

factor to hold against the said documents. The entry "Mani" is stated 208-J-WP-1517-15 5/6

to be similar as to "Mana" for such purposes. This aspect has been

considered in Pallavi d/o Rajendra Dardemal (supra). The order of

invalidation on that count is liable to be interfered with.

5. It is to be noted that the petitioner's brother has been issued

validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee on 29/03/2008. Validity

Certificates have also been issued to the petitioner's cousin and other

members of the larger family. In the validity certificate issued to the

petitioner's brother, it has been stated that same has been done after

considering the documents and associated facts. This aspect has been

considered in Ku. Nayan d/o Bhaskar Chouke (supra) wherein the

effect of similar validity certificates granted in terms of the directions

of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5270/2004

wherein it was held that such validity certificate having been issued by

the Scrutiny Committee after recording its satisfaction, there was no

reason to discard it, has been considered. It was further observed

that there was nothing on record that showed that while granting the

earlier validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee has not recorded its

satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of documentary evidence.

Hence the said validity certificate will have to be given its due

weightage. In Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) it has been held that

validity certificate granted to a blood relative cannot be ignored and 208-J-WP-1517-15 6/6

other family members are entitled to seek benefit of the same unless it

is shown that such validity certificate was obtained by fraud. That

aspect is missing in the present case.

6. We find that the Scrutiny Committee has erred in not

considering the old documents and giving due weightage to the same.

The effect of validity certificate granted to the petitioner's brother has

also not been taken into consideration. We therefore find that the

impugned order is not sustainable and the petitioner is entitled for

declaration of her tribe-claim.

7. Hence for aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed.

(i) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 21/06/2014 is set aside.

(ii) It is declared that the petitioner has proved that she belongs to "Mana" (Scheduled Tribe) which is entry No.44 in The Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950.

(iii) The Scrutiny Committee shall within a period of four weeks of receiving copy of this judgment issue validity certificate to the petitioner.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                (Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)          (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Digitally signed byASMITA
ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR
Signing Date:10.10.2022
17:22:06             Asmita