Bombay High Court
Mrunay Pankaj Baviskar And Others vs Sub Divisional Officer And ... on 12 September, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:19819-DB
921 WP 5366 22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2022
1) Mrunay Pankaj Baviskar
Age 09 years, Occ. Education.
2) Ishan Pankaj Baviskar,
Age 07 years, Occ. Education.
3) Pankaj Vaman Baviskar,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture.
4) Sanjay Vaman Baviskar,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture
Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 minor
through their natural guardian i.e.
father Pankaj Vaman Baviskar,
R/o. Gorgawale Tq. Chopda,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1) Sub Divisional Officer,
Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Phatale Sagar S.
A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.S. Shinde
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 12.09.2023
PER COURT : (PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
Heard learned advocate for the respective sides finally.
921 WP 5366 22.odt
2. The petitioners are challenging common judgment and order dated
09.12.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee, rejecting
their appeals and confirming the distinct orders of rejection of applications
seeking issuance of tribe certificates passed by the respondent no. 1-Sub
Divisional Officer.
3. The petitioners claim to be member of scheduled tribe 'Tokre Koli'.
They have submitted their applications seeking tribe certificates to the
respondent No. 1. The documentary evidence was also placed on record to
substantiate their claim. Their applications were rejected by distinct orders
passed on 07.05.2021 holding that no evidence was produced in support of
their claim. Being aggrieved, appeals were preferred before the respondent
No. 2 under Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001.
4. The petitioners are relying upon the genealogy which is placed on
record at page 24. They are further relying upon the 7x12 extract which is
in the name of Waman Sitaram Koli, tribe certificate issued to Waman
Sitaram Baviskar (Koli) (grand father of the petitioners), affidavit and
school record of the relatives.
5. The scrutiny committee rejected their appeals holding that the appeals
were filed belatedly. There were contrary entries in the name of Manga,
Tukaram and also found fault with the revenue record. It is further recorded
that no cogent evidence was produced on record and there was no sufficient
evidence of prior to 1950.
6. The petitioners have already placed on record the tribe certificate
issued to Waman Sitaram Baviskar (Koli), revenue record and the school
entries. This is adequate material to make out a case for issuance of tribe
certificate. The Scrutiny Committee has conducted a threadbare enquiry
which is not contemplated for issuing tribe certificate. The scope of enquiry
for issuing tribe certificate and for scrutiny of tribe certificate is different. We
find that the Scrutiny Committee has committee error of jurisdiction. There
921 WP 5366 22.odt
is prima facie evidence on record to make out a case for issuing tribe
certificate. We reply on the judgment in case of Anand Dhananjay Nalawade
Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 77.
7. For the reasons assigned above, we find that both the impugned
orders are unsustainable.
8. We, therefore, allow the writ petition.
9. The impugned common judgment and order dated 09.12.2021 passed
by the respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee and the distinct orders dated
07.05.2021 passed by the respondent No. 1-Sub Divisional Officer are
quashed and set aside.
10. The respondent No. 1-Sub Divisional Officer shall issue tribe
certificates of 'Tokre Koli' scheduled tribe to the petitioners forthwith.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
