Chandrashekhar Manohar Sanhal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 828 Bom

                               1/4                              956.wp.3254.19-J.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                       WRIT PETITION NO.3254/2019

     Chandrashekhar Manohar Sanhal,
     Aged about 59 Years, Occu.: Service,
     R/o. B/101 Sai Swar, First Floor,
     Sector 2, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.                       PETITIONER

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

2.   The Schedule Tribe Cast Certificate
     Scrutiny Committee, Through Deputy Director
     cum Member Secretary, Near Govt. General
     Hospital, Irwin Chowk, Amravati.

3.   Executive Engineer,
     Public Works Department
     Panvel, District Raigad.                               RESPONDENTS


Mr. G. N. Khanzode, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

             CORAM :       A. S. CHANDURKAR AND
                           MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ.

             DATED :       JANUARY 24, 2023


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

1.           Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

Counsel for the parties.

2/4 956.wp.3254.19-J.odt

3. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order of the

Scrutiny Committee dated 31.07.2013. By the said order the Scrutiny

Committee has invalidated the petitioner's claim of belong to "Mannewar"

Scheduled Tribe.

4. The petitioner in support of his tribe claim sought to rely

upon old documents of the years 1896, 1897 and 1942. In the vigilance

enquiry a report was submitted by the Research Officer on 30.04.2011 and

therein reference was made to the tribe certificate as well as letter issued

by the Tahsil Office that had issued such certificate. The Scrutiny

Committee however on the strength of a subsequent communication dated

03.07.2013 has held that the claim of the petitioner was based on a

certificate that was not issued by the Tahsil Office at Akola. That is the

principal reason for invalidating the petitioner's claim.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to

obtain the record of the Scrutiny Committee for perusal. The same has

accordingly been produced before this Court. According to the petitioner,

initially on 10.01.2011 the Vigilance Cell had sought information from the

Tahsildar, Akola as to whether the certificate dated 17.08.1978 relied upon

by the petitioner had been issued by its office. On 13.01.2011 the

Tahsildar informed the Vigilance Cell that the register pertaining to the

year 1977-78 was not found and therefore, it could not be said as to 3/4 956.wp.3254.19-J.odt

whether the certificate was issued by the said office. However, shortly

thereafter on 17.02.2011, the Tahsildar issued another letter in which it

has been stated that on going through the record and the signature on the

certificate dated 17.08.1978, it was clear that the said certificate was

issued by the Office of the Tahsildar. This communication addressed to the

Vigilance Cell is available on the record of the Scrutiny Committee. It

however appears that thereafter on 03.07.2013, the Tahsildar issued

another communication in the light of the enquiry made by the Vigilance

Cell on 20.06.2013 in the same matter. It is seen that in the record of the

Scrutiny Committee this letter dated 20.06.2013 is not found which has

been responded to by the Tahsildar. It is thus clear that it is only the

communication dated 17.02.2011 that was required to be taken into

consideration by the Scrutiny Committee and not the communication

dated 03.07.2013. The Tahsildar having verified this aspect on

17.02.2011, there was no reason to re-open this aspect especially when

the communication of the Scrutiny committee dated 20.06.2013 is not on

record.

6. The Scrutiny Committee in its order has given much

importance to this communication dated 03.07.2013 and has observed

that the claim of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and is based on a

tribe certificate that was never issued. In the light of the communication 4/4 956.wp.3254.19-J.odt

dated 17.02.2011, we find that the Scrutiny Committee ought to

re-consider the petitioner's tribe claim. This is more so for that reason that

the petitioner is in possession of old documents of the years 1896, 1897

and 1942. The petitioner having retired from service, it is desirous that

his claim is re-considered in accordance with law.

7. Since the Scrutiny Committee has proceeded on the basis of

communication dated 03.07.2013 which is stated to be in response to the

letter dated 20.06.2013 that is not found on the record of the Vigilance

Cell, we are inclined to remand the proceedings for fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, the order dated 31.07.2013 is set aside. The Scrutiny

Committee shall re-consider the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to

"Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe in accordance with law. Such adjudication

be completed within a period of four months from petitioner's appearance

before the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny

Committee on 01.02.2023 for said purpose.

8. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

Digitally signed byRANJANA MANOJ MANDADE Signing Date:27.01.2023 16:34 RGurnule .