Bombay High Court
Smt. Sharda Arjuna Mankar @ Sau. Sharda ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secretary, ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2023:BHC-NAG:17001-DB
1 wp 8001.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.8001/2023
Smt. Sharda Arjuna Mankar,
@ Sau. Sharda Tulshiram Godghase,
Aged about 35 years, Occ-....,
R/o.- Supkhela, Tahasil and District Washim. ... Petitioner.
---Versus---
1. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary,
Ministry of Social Justice and Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,
through is Deputy Director/ Member-Secretary.
3. District Collector, Yavatmal.
4. Election Officer and Tahasildar, Washim. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kunal Nalamwar, Advocates for petitioner.
Mr. D.P. Thakre, Addl.AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ
DATE : 06-12-2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per- Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
The challenge is to the order dated 31-10-2023 passed
by the respondent no.2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal. By the said order, the claim by the
petitioner as that of belonging to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe
came to be negated.
2 wp 8001.23
2. Respondent Authority issued to petitioner a certificate
in Form "C" under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance an Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act"), based on an
application dated 13-08-2022. Based on such certificate as that of
belongs to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner got
elected as a Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat Supkhela.
3. As the petitioner was elected on the seat which was
reserved for Scheduled Tribe category for the post of Sarpanch,
the petitioner in law was duty-bound to produce the validity
certificate. That being so the claim was submitted to the
respondent Committee for deciding the claim for validity. The
respondent Committee after following due process of law viz. base
on Vigilance Cell enquiry, the affinity test negated the claim vide
impugned order as the petitioner failed to discharge the burden to
the effect as provided under Section 8 of the Act.
4. The contentions of learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner are the respondent Committee has committed an error
in ignoring the oldest document which is of 07-07-1994.
According to him, the primary school record of the petitioner in
categorical terms detects that the petitioner belongs to "Koli
Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe. He would further urge that prior to
3 wp 8001.23
the aforesaid date i.e. 07-07-1994 there are entries of "Koli" as
prior to the said date the caste "Mahadeo Koli" is not included in
the Scheduled Tribe category.
5. In addition to above, he would urge that the petitioner
has demonstrated that she satisfy the affinity test and that being
so order impugned is not sustained and is liable to be quashed and
set aside with directions to the respondent Committee to issue
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner.
6. While countering the aforesaid submissions, learned
Additional Government Pleader Mr. Deepak Thakre, would urge
that the Vigilance Cell Enquiry Report in categorical terms
speaks of the petitioner not belonging to "Mahadeo Koli"
Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the oldest document i.e
dated 22-09-1950 in relation to the grandfather of the petitioner
speaks of the entry "Koli". Apart from above, he would invite our
attention to the other entries of 01-07-1968 in relation to Arjuna,
father of the petitioner, wherein the caste entry "Koli" could be
noticed in the school records. Similar is the case in relation to the
uncles of the petitioner namely Bhiwa and Shivaji of the years
1959, 1961 and 1963. He would further urge that the affinity test
was also applied and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity
of "Mahadeo Koli" Scheduled Tribe. That being so, he would urge
that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4 wp 8001.23
7. We have considered the rival submissions.
8. The Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribe) Order
came into existence in the year 1950 and as such the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil vs
Commissioner, Tribal Development reported (1994) 6 SCC 241
provides that the evidence in support of the tribe claim as that of
belonging to Scheduled Tribe prior to 1950 will have more
probative value and such evidence can be accepted by the
respondent Committee for the purpose of granting validity.
9. In the case in hand, the petitioner is able to produce
only document of the year 1994 i.e the Primary School entry in
relation to her admission to Zilla Parishad Senior Primary School,
wherein her caste is mentioned as "Koli Mahadeo". Apart from
above, the other documents which the petitioner has produced on
record are that of the affidavits sworn by her and the certificate
issued by the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat which is undated.
10. The fact remains that the 1994 document particularly
entry as regards the scheduled tribe needs an explanation from the
petitioner as a person gets its caste by birth. Once the caste entry
in relation to grandfather, father and uncle of the petitioner is
recorded as "Koli" way back from 1950 onwards, the petitioner
must give an explanation for incorporation of such an entry in the
primary school record that too in 1994 as that of "Koli Mahadeo".
5 wp 8001.23
11. A perusal of the pleadings in the petition so also the
reply tendered by the petitioner before the respondent Committee
do not give any satisfying explanation to the said effect. As such,
we are of the view that the petitioner has incorporated the entry
"Koli Mahadeo" in the primary school record only for the purpose
of gaining benefit that too when she is not entitled for such benefit
in view of the earlier caste entries in her parents school record
which is "Koli". The fact remains that the caste "Koli" is not
included in the scheduled tribe order.
12. Apart from the above, we have perused the impugned
order also in relation to the observations recorded pertaining to the
satisfaction of the affinity test the respondent Committee in detail
has gone in considering the case of the petitioner by applying the
affinity test and has noticed that the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that the rites, customs and traditions which are
followed by the petitioner matches with that of the one which
are followed and practiced by the "Koli Mahadeo" scheduled tribe.
13. In the aforesaid background, there is hardly any
material to infer that the petitioner belongs to "Koli Mahadeo"
scheduled tribe.
14. Rather the record collected by the Vigilance Cell and
brought to the notice of the Scheduled Tribe Committee depicts
that the petitioner belongs to "Koli" and not "Koli Mahadeo"
6 wp 8001.23
scheduled tribe. The petitioner has unreasonably and dishonestly
tried to take advantage of the only entry in the primary school
record in relation to her caste which goes contrary to the record of
her grandfather, father and uncle.
15. That being so, no case is made out for causing
interference. The petition, as such, stands dismissed with costs.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) ( Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 10:15:35
