Amit Premraj Kale vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9298 Bom

                                             41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt
                                   1


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

              WRIT PETITION NO.2221 OF 2022


1. Shri Amit Premraj Kale,
Aged about 47 years,
Occ: Service, R/o Krushna Niwas,
Ward No.2, Cinema Road, Behind Police
Station, Buldhana Ta and District
Buldhana                              ...        PETITIONER

                      ...VERSUS...


1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Security Committee, S.C. S.T.
Amravati Division, Amravati,
having office at Irwin Chowk,
Morshi Road, Amravati
through its Member

3. The Transport Commissioner,
State of Maharashtra, 05th Floor,
Fountain Building-n2, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001.                    ...       RESPONDENTS.

                       ....


___________________________________________________
Shri R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate with Shri M.V. Amale, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
___________________________________________________
                                          41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt
                               2


          CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.

DATE : 15/09/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: S.B. SHUKRE, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. On going through the impugned order and

documents placed on record, we find that serious error of

law and fact has been committed by the Scrutiny

Committee invalidating the tribe claim of petitioner. The

petitioner claims that he is belonging to "Mannewar"

Scheduled Tribe and has, in support, placed on record

pre-constitutional documents which consistently show that

his paternal relatives belonged to "Mannewar" community.

These documents have the entries of the dates of

16.03.2016, 16.06.1948, 13.02.1928, 19.07.1916,

12.07.1920 and 26.10.1941 and 20.09.1927.

3. The aforestated entries have been rejected by

the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that they were not

duly verified. The Scrutiny Committee had the assistance

of the Vigilance Officer and nothing prevented the 41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt

Scrutiny Committee from verifying those entries. Simply

because, in the perception of the Scrutiny Committee,

these entries cannot be believed to be true and correct

could not be a ground to reject the tribe claim of the

petitioner. Doing so, would be no lesser than doing

injustice to a backward class student like the petitioner.

These documents, in our opinion, do not have anything in

them which would create an obvious impression of wrong

entries. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no

reason for us to disbelieve the correctness of these

documents. If this is so, these documents would have to

be accepted as overwhelmingly supporting the tribe claim

of the petitioner and we do so. There is also another

reason given by the Scrutiny Committee in rejecting such

pre-constitutional evidence adduced by the petitioner.

Scrutiny Committee has opined that in some of the

documents, which are very few in number, there were

some interpolations and therefore, these documents were

full of doubt. The Scrutiny Committee has made a specific

reference to these documents which are of the years 1947, 41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt

1942 and 1950. Even if, this is accepted to be true, these

documents do not create any doubt about the genuineness

of the other pre-constitutional documents which has been

established in a reasonable manner and which support the

tribe-claim of the petitioner. The oldest of these

documents is of the year 1960 and about this document,

there is no doubt whatsoever expressed by the Scrutiny

Committee. This document clearly shows that the paternal

ancestors of the petitioner belonged to "Mannewar"

community, which has been declared to be Scheduled-

Tribe as per the Constitutional Order, of the year 1950.

4. There is another reason stated by the Scrutiny

Committee for invalidating the tribe-claim of the

petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee states that some

documents disclose the caste of paternal relatives of the

petitioner as "Telgu Mannewar". In fact, the law in this

regard has been settled long back in the case of Shri Anil

Ramdas Mede Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in

Writ Petition No.5090 of 2003 wherein it is stated that

there is no such caste in existence as "Telgu Mannewar".

41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt

Therefore, the prefix "Telgu" attached to the word

"Mannewar" has to be understood as referring to the

language spoken by the persons belonging to "Mannewar"

community. We therefore, find no substance in the stand

so taken by the Scrutiny Community.

5. In view of above, we find that there is a patent

error of law and fact committed by the Scrutiny

Committee in rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner.

The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law,

It deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is quashed

and set aside accordingly.

6. Accordingly, we direct the Scrutiny Committee

to issue validity certificate to the petitioner as he

belonging to "Mannewar Scheduled Tribe" within a period

of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

costs.

               JUDGE                                    JUDGE


manisha
                                     41 wp 2221.22.odt..odt





Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:16.09.2022 18:24