Bombay High Court
Suyash Rajiv Sable vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 December, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:25912-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.4080 OF 2022
Suyash Rajiv Sable
Age : 19 years, Occu : Student,
R/o. Rawla, Tq. Soygaon,
Dist. Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe,
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Member Secretary,
Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad
3. The Principal Ratnapurti,
Junior College, Galan, Tq. Pachora,
Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents
...
Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2023
JUDGMENT (PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) :
. 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. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated
14.02.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee
invalidating his tribe claim as belonging to 'Naikda' Scheduled Tribe.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the Petitioner
that despite the validities of the said tribe claim in favour of the
father and paternal uncle of the Petitioner and pre-constitutional
entries of the great grandfather of the Petitioner supporting the tribe
claim, the respondent no. 2 - Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the
Petitioner's claim for incorrect reasons. He further submitted that the
Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has referred to the contrary
entries of the year 1953 and 1959 in the school record of the Bansilal
Ramdas Damodhar and Jagannath Ramdas Damodhar, who are the
grandfather and cousin uncle of the Petitioner and referred to the
interpolation in the old record of Ramdas Dashrath Naikda and
invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the
other grounds of invalidation are the affinity test and area restriction.
It is submitted that, the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP that though there are
pre-constitutional entries in support of the tribe claim of the
Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has noticed
contrary entries of the blood relatives of the Petitioner and
interpolation in the old record of the blood relatives of the Petitioner.
He further submitted that considering the material available on
record, the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has rightly
invalidated the Petitioner's claim and have decided to re-open the
earlier validity proceedings.
5. There is no dispute about the genealogy. The papers on
record show that the vigilance enquiry was conducted in the matter
of validity to the Petitioner's father and after following due process,
the validity came to be issued to the Petitioner's father. The vigilance
report in the case of the Petitioner's father records the
pre-constitutional entries supporting the tribe claim of 'Naikda' in
respect of the grandfather and great grandfather of Petitioner. The
validity certificate issued to the Petitioner's father is not disputed.
6. The papers indicate that the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny
Committee recorded that in the school record, against the name of
Bansilal Ramdas Damodar and Jagannath Ramdas Damodhar who
are shown as grandfather and cousin uncle respectively, of the
Petitioner, it is found that the caste is mentioned as 'Mathure Vanjari'.
It is further recorded by the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee
in the impugned order that in respect of the Bansilal Ramdas
Damodhar, the caste 'Mathure Vanjari' came to be scratched and
'Naikda' came to be included in the school record. The Petitioner has
disputed the relations with the said Bansilal Damodhar as can be seen
from the reply given to the vigilance report. The Scrutiny Committee
has further recorded that in the Pahani Patrak of Ramdas Dashrath
Naikda, there is insertion of word 'Naikda' in blue pen.
7. Admittedly, the above contrary entries are of the year
1953 and 1959, which is post constitutional period. Though the
Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has recorded about insertion
of word 'Naikda' in different ink in the Pahani Patrak of
pre-constitutional period, there is no dispute regarding the entry of
'Naikda' against the name Dashrath Damodhar, i.e. great grandfather
of the Petitioner, in the Kotwal book in respect of birth and death
entries which is of pre-constitutional period i.e. 1923. Admittedly,
vide communication dated 28.12.2010, the Tahsildar, Arni has
certified by issuing the letter to the vigilance cell that the copy of said
entry in the birth and death register as Dashrath Damodhar 'Naikda'
was issued from that office and there was no interpolation in the said
entry. It is needless to state that the said entry being of pre-
constitutional period will have more probative value. Even during
the vigilance enquiry of the petitioner's father, this entry is relied
upon and taken into consideration.
8. As there is no dispute that the petitioner's father is issued
with the tribe validity certificate of 'Naikda' Tribe by following due
procedure and the oldest pre-constitutional entries of the blood
relatives of the petitioner support the petitioner's claim, the petitioner
cannot be denied the validity certificate of 'Naikda' Scheduled Tribe
keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC
Online SC 326. The other two grounds i.e. affinity and area
restrictions do not survive in the light of Palghat Jilla Thandan
Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and Another Vs. State of Kerala and
Anr. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 359.
9. In the backdrop of the above discussion, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside and hence the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee shall
immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the
Petitioner as belonging to 'Naikda' Scheduled Tribe,
which shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the
committee in the reopened matters.
(iv) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE JUDGE
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 16:02:16
