Nilesh Samadhan Jadhv vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8975 Bom

                                                                       WP 9187 19.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 9187 OF 2019
                        WITH CA/11453/2021 IN WP/9187/2019
                         WITH CA/914/2020 IN WP/9187/2019

       Nilesh Samadhan Jadhav,
       Age 24 years, Occ. Education,
       R/o. Mandve Budruk, Tq. Jamner,
       District Jalgaon.                               ...       Petitioner

       VERSUS

1)     The State of Maharashtra
       Through the Secretary
       Social Welfare Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)     The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
       Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar,
       Through its Member Secretary.

3)     Shri. Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas
       Mandal's The College of Agriculture
       Georai Tanda, Paithan Road,
       Aurangabad, Through its Principal.

4)    The Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi
      Vidyapith, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani,
      Through its Registrar.                        ...       Respondents.
                                       ...
               Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Balaji S. Shinde
               A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mrs. R.P. Gaur
      Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. S.R. Sapkal h/f Mr. S.G. Sangle

                               CORAM               : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                     SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                               RESERVED ON         :   29.08.2022.
                               PRONOUNCED ON       :   08.09.2022.
JUDGMENT :              (PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

         We have heard both the sides.





                                                                          WP 9187 19.odt

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned advocate Mr. Sapkal h/f Mr. Sangle learned advocate waives service for the respondent No. 4.

3. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Nandurbar Caste Scrutiny Committee, constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter 'the Act'), invalidating his claim of being 'Tokre Koli', a scheduled tribe.

4. The learned advocate Mr. Shinde for the petitioner would submit that the government of India started mentioning castes in the census from 1921. It is only thereafter that only 'Koli' caste was started to be mentioned. There was no reference to any sub caste in Khandesh region in all the old entries, prior to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Therefore, no inference was deducible by referring to the pre-independence entries of the petitioner's predecessors and near relations where only word 'Koli' was used which was a generic one.

5. Learned advocate would also submit that 'Tokre Koli' and 'Dhor Koli' are synonymous. Since the word 'Dhor' was demeaning, word 'Tokre Koli' was being used. Both the tribes are same and were included at same serial number in the Circulation No. 7/1910 dated 05.7.1910 issued by the Bombay Presidency. The learned advocate would again submit that the adverse entries relied upon by the scrutiny committee wherein 'Hindu Koli' is mentioned are in fact not adverse entries as laid down in the matter of Rahul Ramchandra Padlse Vs. State of Maharashtra and others( in Writ Petition No. 8789/2010, by judgment and order dated 12.12.2012) and Tushar Pandurang Baviskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.; 2017(5) Bom.C.R. 427.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner would also submit that his native is

WP 9187 19.odt notified scheduled tribe village. Even his family was allotted land under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as it belonged to a scheduled tribe. All these factors were overlooked by the scrutiny committee. The report was submitted by the vigilance cell without conducting any enquiry and even without visiting his house. He had submitted a detailed reply to the vigilance report. The grounds assigned by the scrutiny committee are not tenable and the order be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. would support the order. She would submit that inconsistent entries in respect of the tribe name have been appearing in the old record of the petitioner's predecessors and relations. Those have been rightly considered by the committee indicating falsity in the claim. No sufficient explanation was forthcoming to discard such adverse entries. It is not merely a matter of use of word 'Koli'. Simultaneously, it was also noticed that several of petitioner's relatives were mentioned as 'Hindu Suryawanshi Koli, 'Magaslela Koli'. Kolis and Suryawanshi Kolis fall under SEBC category, whereas Tokre Koli is a scheduled tribe. She would also point out that the validities issued to the three persons which the petitioner is relying upon are not related to him by blood inasmuch as two of them are from maternal side of his father and in case of third one the genealogy furnished by the petitioner and the one furnished by that person Ramesh Nina Jadhav does not tally. The scrutiny committee has minutely considered all these aspects and has reached a legal conclusion, which decision cannot be questioned.

8. We have carefully gone through the papers. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the pre-constitution order entries are to be ignored wherein the petitioner's predecessors were described as Koli, pertinently as mentioned in the vigilance cell report reproduced in the order under challenge, in case of petitioner's cousin sister Pramila Devchand Patil, cousin brother Harchand Ramchandra Jadhav, another cousin Gopichand Devchand Jadhav, whose date of births are from 1956 to 1960, they all have been shown to be 'Hindu Suryawanshi Koli' which admittedly falls under other backward class and not under scheduled tribe list. Whereas, petitioner's father, cousin sister stated to be Devchand Nathu Patil's daughter, cousin brother Puna Ramchandra Nathu Patil and another cousin

WP 9187 19.odt Vitthal Ramchandra Jadhav whose entries are from 1957 to 1969, they have been shown as 'Hindu Magaslela'. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation about such long standing entries since 1956, where, in case of none of these persons tribe has been mentioned as 'Tokre Koli', in our considered view no exception can be taken to the view of the scrutiny committee to treat these entries as contrary entries.

9. The petitioner is relying upon the validities issued to one Devrao Baburao Patil and Dashrath Baburao Patil. However, petitioner's father Soma @ Samadhan happens to be the cousin maternal uncle of both these persons. The fact has not been disputed and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to rely upon validities issued in their favour.

10. As far as the third individual Ramesh Nina Jadhav is concerned, in the impugned order the genealogy given by the petitioner and the genealogy furnished in the proceeding of Ramesh Nina Jadhav have both been reproduced and the committee has objectively demonstrated that the genealogies do not tally. Even the learned advocate for the petitioner could not give any satisfactory explanation about this circumstance regarding variance of the genealogies.

11. Resultantly, the validities being relied upon by the petitioner are not acceptable as a proof for his claim whereas there are number of entries contrary to his claim of being Tokre Koli. The decision of the scrutiny committee, in our considered view, is clearly based on correct appreciation of the evidence before it and is unassailable.

12. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. The Rule is discharged.

13. Pending Civil Applications are disposed of.

 (SANDEEP V. MARNE J.)                                      (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)


mkd/-