Bombay High Court
Pratham Dattatray More And Anar vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, ... on 15 December, 2023
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:37856-DB
1 wp-15661-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15661 OF 2022
1. Pratham Dattatray More
Aged 18 years, Occ: Student
2. Sayli Rakesh More
Aged 21 years Occ: Student
Both Residing at 303, Riddhi Build.,
Javer Nagar, Ganesh Nagar Chowk,
Anand Park Road, Vadgaon Sheri,
Pune-411 014. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Tribal Development Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai: 400 032
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Divisional
having its office at Dist. Nashik. ...Respondents
-----
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w. Ms. Komal Gaikwad & Ms. Priyanka Shaw for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P. a/w. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respodnent-State.
-----
Digitally
signed by
ASHVINI
ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB
BAPPASAHEB KAKDE
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
KAKDE Date:
2023.12.15
18:14:39
+0530
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29TH NOVEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th DECEMBER 2023
JUDGMENT (Per Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the parties.
Ashvini Kakde 1 of 9
2 wp-15661-2022
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioners seek quashing and setting
aside of the impugned Order dated 7th November 2022 passed by
Respondent No.2 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
with further directions to issue Certificate of Validity of Caste to the
Petitioners.
3. The case of the Petitioners is as follows:-
a The Petitioners, by birth, belong to the Thakar tribe which is
recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled
Tribes) Order, 1950 ,as amended from time to time. They were granted
Caste Certificates as belonging to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe.
b The Petitioners moved Respondent No.2 on 8 th February 2021 and 1st
January 2021 respectively for verification of their Caste Certificates
and filed with Respondent No.2 various documents in relation to their
blood relatives from the paternal side, including pre-Constitutional
documents in relation to their forefathers wherein the tribe is duly
recorded as Thakar.
c In support of their applications, they also placed on record Caste
Validity Certificates granted to various blood relatives from their
paternal side before Respondent No.2, which included Caste Validity
Certificates of the respective fathers of both the Petitioners.
d Despite the aforesaid evidence on record, Respondent No.2 referred
Ashvini Kakde 2 of 9
3 wp-15661-2022
the case of the Petitioners for vigilance enquiry to the Vigilance Cell
attached to it. The Vigilance Cell, after conducting an enquiry,
submitted its Report to Respondent No.2 on 16th July 2021.
e The Petitioners thereafter filed a reply to the Vigilance Cell Report and
pointed out that they had produced documentary evidence right from
the year 1928, which was found to be genuine and correct. The
Petitioners also pointed out that they had disclosed full affinity with
the Thakar tribe by furnishing information on the point of socio
cultural affinity test which included information with regard to the
birth and death ceremonies, marriage ceremonies, God-Goddesses
worshipped, method of burial of dead bodies, traditional dances and
socio cultural rituals. They further pointed out that their blood
relatives had been granted Caste Validity Certificates after following
due process of law. The Petitioners also relied upon various judgments
of this Court in that regard.
f Respondent No.2- not being satisfied with the first enquiry report and
the explanation offered thereto, called for a second enquiry report
from its Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell submitted its
second Report dated 31st May 2022.
g The Petitioners filed a detailed reply dated 25 th July 2022 to the said
Report and submitted that their cases were fully covered by the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in that
regard. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 give a hearing to the Petitioners
Ashvini Kakde 3 of 9
4 wp-15661-2022
wherein it was pointed out, on behalf of the Petitioners, that they were
relying upon a series of validity certificates issued to their blood
relatives.
h Despite the same, by the impugned Order dated 7 th November 2022,
Respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the Petitioners for granting of
Caste Validity Certificates and cancelled and confiscated the Caste
Certificates of the Petitioners.
i Being aggrieved by the said impugned Order dated 7 th November
2022, the Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.
4. In the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors .1,this Court has held that, if
relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has
been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why
public time or money should be spent in the Committee testing the same
evidence and making the same conclusion unless the Committee finds on the
evidence that the validity certificate of such relation has been obtained by
fraud. This Court further held that, when, during the course of an enquiry,
the candidate submits a Caste Validity Certificate granted earlier certifying
that a blood relationship of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that
claimed by the candidate, the Committee may even grant such certificate
without calling for a vigilance report. Paragraph Nos.4 and 7 of the said
Judgement are relevant and are set out hereunder:-
1 2010(6)MH.L.J. 401
Ashvini Kakde 4 of 9
5 wp-15661-2022
4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the
petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat- Nomadic
Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on
the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs
to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart
from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the
guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and
based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise.
If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and
one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular
caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be
spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making
the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the
evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has
been obtained by fraud.
7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course
of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate
granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate
belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the
committee may grant such certificate without calling for
Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that
earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without
jurisdiction, the committee may refuse to follow and may refuse
to grant certificate to the applicant before it.
5. Further, paragraph 23 of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 is also very relevant and is set out
hereunder:-
23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may be satisfied
that the caste validity certificate relied upon by the applicant
has been issued after making a lawful enquiry. But if the
Scrutiny Committee is of the view that the applicant has not
clearly established that the person to whom caste validity
certificate produced on record has been granted is his blood
relative, in terms of subrule (2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules,
the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to refer the case for
2 2023 SCC Online SC 326.
Ashvini Kakde 5 of 9
6 wp-15661-2022
conducting an enquiry through Vigilance Cell. In such a case,
the Vigilance Cell can be directed by the Scrutiny Committee
to conduct an enquiry limited to the relationship claimed by
the applicant with the person in whose favour the caste
validity certificate has been issued. If, on the basis of the
report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee is
satisfied that the person in whose favour caste validity
certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the applicant
and lawful enquiry has been conducted before issuing the
validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue
validity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy the
affinity test. For example, if it is established that the father or
grandfather of the applicant has been given a caste validity
certificate after holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with
law, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that the
grandfather or father of the applicant, as the case may be,
belongs to Scheduled Tribe but the applicant does not belong
to Scheduled Tribe. Only if the relationship as pleaded by the
applicant is not established, the other evidence produced by
the applicant and the result of the affinity test can be taken
into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.
6. From the said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also it is
clear that, if blood relatives, and especially paternal blood relatives like the
father or grandfather of the applicant, have been given a Caste Validity
Certificate after holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with law, the Caste
Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that the father or grandfather of the
applicant, as the case may be, belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, but the
applicant does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. Only if the relationship as
pleaded by the applicant is not established the other evidence produced by
the applicant and the result of the affinity test can be taken into
consideration by the Scrutiny Committee.
7. In our view, if the ratio of the aforesaid two judgments is applied to
the facts of the present case, then the Petitioners ought to have been granted
Ashvini Kakde 6 of 9
7 wp-15661-2022
Caste Validity Certificates by Respondent No.2. In the present case, it is not
in dispute that Caste Validity Certificates have been granted to the father of
Petitioner No.1 and the father of Petitioner No.2 and to other blood relatives
of the Petitioners by the Scrutiny Committee after making an appropriate
inquiry. These Caste Validity Certificates granted to the respective fathers of
the Petitioners and to their blood relatives have not been cancelled and are
in existence. In these circumstances, applying the ratio of the aforesaid two
Judgements to the present case, it will have to be held that both the
Petitioners are entitled to Caste Validity Certificates certifying that they
belong to Thakar tribe as, otherwise, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(supra), it would mean that the respective fathers of the Petitioners and their
other blood relatives belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe and the
Petitioners do not belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe, which is totally
unacceptable. For this reason alone, the Petitioners are entitled to be granted
Caste Validity Certificates stating that they belong to the Thakar Scheduled
Tribe.
8. Further, a perusal of the impugned Order dated 7 th November 2022
shows that the Petitioners have also produced pre-Constitutional documents,
namely birth records of their blood relatives of the years 1943, 1941, 1938
and 1928, showing that they belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe. It is well
settled in law that these pre-Constitutional documents, which were issued at
a time when there was no question of any reservation for any Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe, are extremely relevant and have got the highest
probative value for the purpose of deciding the caste or tribe of a person or
Ashvini Kakde 7 of 9
8 wp-15661-2022
for granting a Caste Validity Certificate. Paragraph 20 of the Judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) is relevant in that regard and reads as
under:-
20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in
which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the
case to Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid
down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil. It lays
down that the documents of the pre - Constitution
period showing the caste of the applicant and their
ancestors have got the highest probative value. For
example, if an applicant is able to produce
authentic and genuine documents of the pre -
Constitution period showing that he belongs to a
tribal community , there is no reason to discard his
claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations
provided to the Tribes included in the ST order . In
such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not
warranted at all.
9. In our view, for this reason also, Respondent No.2 ought to have
granted Caste Validity Certificates to the Petitioners.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, and for all the reasons given
hereinabove, the impugned Order dated 7th November 2022 passed by
Respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside and Respondent No.2 is
directed to issue to each of the Petitioners a Validity Certificate stating that
they belong to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of this Order.
11. Rule issued is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Ashvini Kakde 8 of 9
9 wp-15661-2022
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as
to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA., J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR J.)
Ashvini Kakde 9 of 9
