Bombay High Court
Saurabh Kakasaheb Shirsath vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 December, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:25913-DB
1 WP2434.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2434 OF 2022
Saurabh s/o Kakasaheb Shirsath,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Raskarmala, Marutinagar, Ward No. 2,
Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Member Secretary,
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Dist. Nashik.
3. Shri. Siddhivinayak Polytechnic,
Siddhatek Berdi, Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar,
Through its Principal ....Respondents
....
Mr. Deepak D. Chaudhari - Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M. M. Nerlikar - AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2
Respondent no. 3 served (Absent)
....
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 06.12.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] : -
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission. Perused the papers on record.
2 WP2434.2022.odt
2. By the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was the student in
Respondent No. 3 - College, is challenging the order dated 24.11.2021
passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee invaliding his
claim of belonging to "Koli Mahadev (ST-29)".
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioner
that despite seven (7) validity certificates have been issued by various
Scrutiny Committees to seven (7) paternal blood relatives of the
petitioner and were tendered in support of his claim, the Respondent
No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the petitioner's claim. It is
submitted that the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has
discarded the validities by stating that the same were issued without
proper inquiry. He submitted that till the validity certificates of the
blood relatives of the Petitioner are not cancelled and confiscated by
Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner cannot be denied
the validity. He further submitted that the other grounds on which the
Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the claim are
affinity test and area restrictions, which are unsustainable in the eye of
law in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs.
State of Maharashtra Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326, Palghat
Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and Another Vs. State of
3 WP2434.2022.odt
Kerala and Anr. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 359 and Jaywant Dilip Pawar
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2018 (5) All MR 975 and,
therefore, the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned AGP appearing for Respondent No. 2 - Committee
submitted that though there are validities issued to the paternal blood
relatives of the petitioner, the same cannot form the basis to validate the
petitioner's claim for the reason that no proper inquiry was held before
issuing the validities. He relies upon the judgment in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court carved
out the exception that when the validity certificate has been granted
without holding a proper inquiry or without recording reasons, the
Scrutiny Committee cannot validate the caste certificate only on the
basis of such validity certificates of the blood relatives. He submitted
that in the case in hand the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has
recorded reasons for discarding the validities issued by the erstwhile
Scrutiny Committees and, therefore, no fault can be found with the
impugned order. It is further submitted by the learned AGP that the
Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee in the impugned judgment has
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Raju Ramsing Vasave Versus Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54 and applying the ratio, the respondent no.
2 - Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the petitioner's tribe
claim.
4 WP2434.2022.odt
5. Before enactment of the the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [hereinafter
referred to as the "said Act"] the tribe claims were processed by the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee as per the guidelines
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs
Addl. Commissioner reported in 1995 AIR 94. After coming into force
the said Act and the Rules, 2003 framed under the Act, the procedure of
verification of tribe claims are regulated by the said Act and the Rules.
Under the said Act and Rules, the vigilance inquiry is to be done only if
the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material available
before it.
6. The undisputed genealogy in the case in hand is shown as
under : -
nxMw f"kjlkB
Hkkxor jkoth
jaxukFk xaxk/kj nRrk=; dkdklkgsc v"kksd dp#
fd"kksjh
eksfguh e`.kky lkSjHk lafni o'kkZ
jksfg.kh vtZnkj
¼tkr iMrkG.kh izdj.k½
vej vkfnukFk vkezikyh larks'k vfurk lafni mToyk eaxs"k jkfxuh oS"kkyh
e`.kky vk"kqrks'k
7. From the impugned order, it is seen that the first validity
holder in the family of the petitioner is Mangesh Kacharu Shirsath, who
5 WP2434.2022.odt
got the validity certificate on 11.08.2009. Undisputedly and as can be
seen from the impugned order, vigilance was conducted in the matter of
Mangesh Kacharu Shirsath. Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has
discarded his validity on the ground that the vigilance inquiry in the
matter was not made in detail and Mangesh had not brought before the
erstwhile Committee the contrary entries of his cousin uncles. It is not
in dispute that Mangesh Kacharu Shirsath and the present petitioner are
cousins and the validity certificate of Mangesh Kacharu Shirsath was
issued after following due process. It is debatable as to whether the
Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee can comment on the vigilance
report in earlier proceedings, which are concluded and can examine the
correctness of the erstwhile Committee's order as if sitting in Appeal. It
can be said that the inability of the said validity holder to produce the
old documents cannot be said to have been done to hide the
unfavourable material i.e. contrary entries. Thus, the reason given by
the Committee to discard the validity of Mangesh is not acceptable being
unsustainable.
8. Another validity holder in the blood relation of the
Petitioner, as seen from the impugned order, is Amrapali Gangadhar
Shirsath. Respondent No. 2 - Committee has also discarded the same by
observing that no document prior to 1950 was produced and further
went to observe that while issuing the validity certificate to Amrapali,
6 WP2434.2022.odt
only caste certificate, school certificate and 7/12 extract were taken into
consideration. The reason given to discard the entry in the 7/12 is that
the entry was of the year 1966, which was not prior to 1950 and,
therefore, could not be used. It was further observed that the validity of
Mangesh Kacharu Shirsth is referred in the matter of Amrapali, which is
not accepted by the Committee. Eventually, Respondent No. 2 -
Committee discarded the validity issued to Amrapali. There is no dispute
that during the validity of said Amrapali, the vigilance inquiry was
resorted to and it submitted its report dated 07.11.2009. The vigilance
inquiry report refers to the contrary entry i.e. Koli against the names of
Rangnath Bhagwat Shirsath and Dattatraya Bhagwat Shirsath, who are
the uncles of the petitioner. However, the concerned Tribe Validity
Scrutiny Committee had issued the validity certificate to Amrapali.
Thus, the reasons given by the Respondent No. 2 - Committee to discard
the validity of Amrapali, cannot be accepted.
9. As the contrary entries of Rangnath and Dattatraya which
were not before the then Tribe Validity Scrutiny Committee which had
issued validity certificate to the first validity holder i.e. Mangesh
Kacharu Shirsath, were before the Committee which dealt with and
validated the tribe claim of Amrapali and the validity certificate was
issued to her on 04.03.2010. As the coordinate Committee has
considered those contrary entries and issued validity to Amrapali, the
7 WP2434.2022.odt
reasons given by the Respondent No. 2 - Committee for discarding the
validity of Mangesh falls down.
10. The other validity holder in the family of the Petitioner is
Amar Gangadhar Shirsath. His validity is discarded by the Respondent
No. 2 - Committee by observing that no documents prior to 1950 were
made available and also referred to the contra entries of 'Koli' in the
school record of Rangnath, which has been considered in the case of
Amrapali. It is observed that the validity certificate was issued without
conducting police vigilance inquiry. The copy of the order dated
23.04.2010 passed by the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik, validating the
tribe claim of Amar Gangadhar Shirsath is made available by the learned
advocate for the petitioner. Perusal of the order shows that the case was
handed over to the Vigilance Cell for detail home and school inquiry and
Inquiry Officer had submitted his report. The said order further notes
that in the old record the caste entries of the candidate's of genuine
Mahadeo Koli community are found as plain 'Koli' and, therefore, the
affinity test was resorted to. It is clearly recorded in the order that the
applicant proved his affinity with the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe
Community. The order records that the Scrutiny Committee considered
the inquiry report of the Vigilance Cell, the satisfactory replies given by
the applicant during hearing and documentary evidence placed on
record and that the candidate belonged to Mahadev Koli Scheduled
8 WP2434.2022.odt
Tribe Community. In this background, the observation of respondent
no.2 Committee discarding the validity of Amar is not acceptable.
11. We would not discuss further about the observations of the
Respondent No. 2 for discarding the validity certificates of the other
parental blood relatives of the present petitioner.
12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the
aforementioned three validities were issued after holding due inquiry
and by following due procedure. Further there is no dispute that the
validity holders, which have been discussed above, are the parental
blood relatives of the petitioner. Applying the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments in paragraph
no. 3, the contention of the learned AGP has no merit. Even the reliance
placed by learned AGP on the observations made in the impugned order
from the Apex Court decision in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave
(supra) is misplaced for the reason that it is not shown that the vital
evidences had been ignored by the said Committees which had granted
the validity certificates to the above referred parental blood relatives.
However, it is seen that the old two contrary entries have been
considered by the Scrutiny Committees in the case of Amrapali and
Amar. The other grounds on which the Respondent No. 2 has rejected
the petitioner's claim is affinity test and area restrictions which are
9 WP2434.2022.odt
unsustainable in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgments referred to in paragraph no. 3 herein.
13. In the conspectus of the matter, the impugned order is
unsustainable in the eye of law and the petitioner cannot be denied the
validity certificate of 'Koli Mahadev (ST-29)' and, hence, we pass the
following order : -
ORDER
i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
iii) The Respondent - Scrutiny Committee shall immediately
issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging
to 'Koli Mahadev (ST-29)' in the prescribed format without
adding anything.
iv) The validity shall be subject to the final outcome of the
matters which the committee has decided to re-open.
v) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
14. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 15:59:27
