Bombay High Court
Deepak Kakasaheb Thakar Through ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 19 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:18610-DB
118.WP.8337.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2024
Deepak S/o. Kakasaheb Thakar
through natural guardian i.e. father
Kakasaheb s/o Govind Thakar ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
Near to CIDCO Bus stand,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
through its Member Secretary ... RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S.S. Phatale
A.G.P. for Respondent/State: Mr. V.M. Jaware
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 19.08.2024
ORDER ( PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
By resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
presumably Sub-Section 2 of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII
of 2001, the petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order of
the respondent - Scrutiny Committee constituted under that Act, refusing
to validate his 'Thakar' scheduled tribe certificate.
2. In view of the exigency being demonstrated, at the joint
request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of
admission.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in
spite of undertaking a vigilance inquiry, not a single contrary
118.WP.8337.24.odt
entry/record could be traced and none has been referred to in the
impugned judgment and order. Consistent record describing the
petitioner and his blood relatives as 'Thakar' has been conveniently
ignored. Even pre-constitutional favourable record has been illegally
discarded. When it was a matter of enormous favourable record, the
Committee ought not to have discarded the claim.
4. Learned advocate would further submit that the petitioner
has been relying upon a certificate of validity possessed by one Dattatray
Parshuram Thakar. Even as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 2003 framed
under the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, Dattatray had come forward
and had filed affidavit along with a genealogy supporting the petitioner's
claim. There was no sound reason for the Committee to entertain any
doubt about the relationship between the petitioner and Dattatray still it
has ignored it and has illegally refused to extend the benefit of his
validity. The observation and conclusion of the Committee in this respect
is perverse and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP would submit that mere entry in
the record as 'Thakar' could not have been treated as 'Thakar' scheduled
tribe when, as observed by the Committee, surname 'Thakar' is used even
in the class of the society, which is not either a scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe. No fault can be found with the observation of the
Committee in refusing to consider the record demonstrating 'Thakar' in
the caste column. He would submit that the petitioner also failed in
118.WP.8337.24.odt
substantiating his claim on the anvil of affinity test.
6. Learned AGP would further submit that the Committee has
given sufficient and cogent reasons to entertain doubt about any blood
relationship between the petitioner and the validity holder Dattatray. The
petitioner has not been consistent in referring to the genealogy. The
impugned order takes a plausible view based on appropriate scrutiny of
the material being relied upon by the petitioner and what could be traced
during vigilance inquiry.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. As far as merit is concerned, a bare perusal at the impugned order
would reveal that the Committee has not entertained any doubt about
genuineness of the record collected during the vigilance inquiry and
expressly reproduced in the impugned judgment and order. These are
consistent entries describing the petitioner and his blood relatives as
'Thakar' or 'Hindu Thakar'. Needless to state that 'Hindu' being not a
caste but religion, these entries of 'Hindu Thakar' cannot be treated as
contrary or incompatible with the tribe claim of 'Thakar'.
8. Even if the Committee has endeavoured to demonstrate as to
how 'Thakar' scheduled tribe is different than the 'Thakar' of the
developed communities, the observation is merely academic and has been
made by applying the principle of area restriction, by passing the
Amendment Act of 1976, and even the decision in the matter of Palaghat
Jila Thandan Samuday Sanrakshan Samiti and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala
118.WP.8337.24.odt
and Anr.; (1994) 1 SCC 359. The approach of the Committee, still,
applying the principle of area restriction to draw some inference is not
legally sustainable. When in the caste column, the petitioner's relations
have been consistently described as 'Thakar' there is no room for treating
it as 'Thakar' which is not a scheduled tribe.
9. If such was the enormous documentary evidence before the
scrutiny committee, in the absence of any contrary record the conduct of
the Committee in discarding it by applying the outdated principle of area
restriction is clearly perverse and arbitrary.
10. So far as, the validity possessed by Dattatray, admittedly, in
accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules 2003, the petitioner had produced
affidavit of Dattatray giving a genealogy, demonstrating as to how he is
related to the validity holder. The imputed order does not deal with this
aspect of the matter. If the validity holder is coming forward and is filing
affidavit in support of the claim of the petitioner and even furnishing a
genealogy to substantiate his stand, it was imperative for the Committee
to assign cogent and convincing reason to dislodge it.
11. The Committee is entertaining a doubt about the relationship
between the petitioner and Dattatray on the ground that there is variance
in the genealogy furnished by petitioner's father and the statement of
validity holder Dattatray's father Parshuram Laxman Thakar dated
16.09.2003 recorded in Dattatray's matter. The genealogy given by the
petitioner's father is as under :
118.WP.8337.24.odt
Sateba Haliba Thakar
Girjappa Sateba Thakar Ranganath Sateba Thakar Krushna Sateba Thakar
Govind Girjappa Thakar Laxman Krushna Thakar
Kakasaheb Govind Thakar Parshuram Laxman Thakar
Deepak Kakasaheb Thakar Dattatray Parshuram Thakar
12. The committee observes that Parshuram in his statement has
stated that he had one real paternal uncle by name Yashvanta Krushna
Thakar, whereas, petitioner's father Kakasaheb has demonstrated that his
cousin grandfather Krsuhna was having one son Laxman, whereas, the
validity holder during his claim had stated that Krushna also had a son by
name Yashavanta.
13. When there is no dispute about the fact that Krushna is the
great grandfather of Dattatray and genealogy furnished by the
petitioner's father is as mentioned herein above, we cannot approve of
the observation of the Committee that the genealogy furnished by the
petitioner's father is not compatible with the stand being taken by
Parshuram merely because Parshuram has stated that he has a paternal
uncle by name Yashavanta which is not to be seen in the genealogy
furnished by the petitioner's father. At the most, it would demonstrate
that the genealogy furnished by the petitioner's father is not complete
118.WP.8337.24.odt
since it does not disclose that Krushna's son Laxman who is father of
Parshuram was having real brother by name Yashvanta Krushna, more so
when it is the stand of Parshuram in his statement dated 16.09.2003 that
Yashavanta was not alive.
14. This being the only reason assigned by the Committee to
entertain doubt about the relationship for refusing to extend the benefit
of validity possessed by Dattatray in spite of he having filed affidavit
supporting the petitioner, the observation and conclusion is clearly
perverse and arbitrary.
15. In view of above, the impugned order is not sustainable in
law and is liable to be reversed.
16. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent - Scrutiny
Committee shall immediately issue certificate of validity to the petitioner
of 'Thakar' scheduled tribe (44).
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
habeeb
