Ayushi D/O Sunil Hedaoo vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7572 Bom

42-J-WP-208-23                                                                    1/4


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                            WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 2023


Ayushi D/o Sunil Hedaoo,
Aged about 18 years, Occ-Student,
R/o Vasti Vandan Apartment, Ashiyad Colony,
Amravati, Tq. And Dist. Amravati                               ... Petitioner

-vs-

The Schedule Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
through its Member Secretary
and Deputy Director, Sanna Building,
Opp. Govt. Rest House,
Camp Amravati 444 601                                          ... Respondent


Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondent.

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

DATE : July 31, 2023

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J. )

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 16/11/2022 thereby invalidating

the petitioner's claim as belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe.

2. The petitioner in support of her claim of belonging to 'Halbi'

Scheduled Tribe heavily relied upon documents dated 07/01/1938 and

42-J-WP-208-23 2/4

04/04/1944 of her forefather which had the entry 'Halbi'. The

Vigilance Cell in its report has found these documents with the

aforesaid entry. However, the Vigilance Cell further found two

documents of 1920 and 1921 with the entry 'Koshti'. The document of

1920 is of Dattu Gangaram while the document of 1921 is of Dattuji

Devaji. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the report of the Vigilance

Cell a specific stand was taken that the said two persons with regard to

whom documents of 1920 and 1921 were referred were not related to

the petitioner. Such stand was taken in detail by giving reasons as to

why the said two documents should not be relied upon. However

while passing the impugned order the Scrutiny Committee has not

dealt with the petitioner's objection in that regard. On the contrary, in

view of the documents of 1920 and 1921, it proceeded to invalidate

the petitioner's claim.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record maintained by the Scrutiny Committee, it is clear

that the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the persons named

in the documents of 1920 and 1921 were not related to the petitioner

has not been dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee. It was necessary

for the Scrutiny Committee to have adjudicated upon those documents

since the Vigilance Cell has found that the documents of 1938 and

42-J-WP-208-23 3/4

1944 have the entry 'Halbi'. If the documents of 1920 and 1921 are

excluded from consideration, the petitioner's claim could be

substantiated by the documents of 1938 and 1944. Since there is

failure on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in specifically dealing

with the clear stand taken by the petitioner, there is no option but to

set aside the impugned order for failure to consider the petitioner's

reply. The proceedings are required to be adjudicated afresh by

directing Scrutiny Committee to give a finding on the stand taken by

the petitioner with regard to the documents of 1920 and 1921.

4. Hence for aforesaid reasons, following order is passed :

(i) The order dated 16/11/2022 passed by the Scrutiny Committee

is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the Committee

for fresh consideration.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on

07/08/2023 to facilitate such re-consideration.

(iii) Since the entire exercise of undertaking vigilance enquiry has

been completed, it is expected that the claim would be decided

by taking into consideration a specific stand taken by the

petitioner to discard the documents of 1920 and 1921.

Petitioner's reply as a whole shall be taken into consideration.

The Scrutiny Committee is free to make necessary enquiry in

42-J-WP-208-23 4/4

that regard to gather the relationship of the petitioner with the

said two persons.

(iv) Since a limited exercise is required to be undertaken, the

process of validation be completed within a period of three

months from the date of the petitioner's appearance.

5. With these directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed

of. Rule accordingly. No costs.

(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J. ) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

Asmita