Bombay High Court
Suraj Satyakumar Sangewar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 27 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:19617-DB
1 WP / 8166 / 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8166 OF 2024
Suraj S/o Satyakumar Sangewar
Age : 30 years, Occu. Education,
R/o : H.No. 59, Prayag Nivas,
Near Sugdi Karkhana, Jagrat Hanuman Nagar,
Pawadewadi Road, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Head Quarter at Chh. Sambhaji Nagar,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Dist. Chh. Sambhaji Nagar
3] The Dean,
Dr. Shankarrao Chavan Govt. Medical College,
Dist. Nanded
4] The Registrar,
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Dindori Road, Mhasrul / Nashik,
Dist. Nashik .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S.M. Vibhute
AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. V.M. Chate
Advocate for respondent no. 4 : Mr. Sk. Parvez h/f. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20 AUGUST 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 27 AUGUST 2024
2 WP / 8166 / 2024
ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
The petitioner is challeging the judgment and order of the
respondent no. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verificiation
Committee, Kinwat, whereby it has refused to validate petitioner's
'Chhatri' scheduled tribe certificate.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has produced pre-constitutional record showing him and his
ancestors as 'Chhatri'. The committee has committed error in treating
entry in the caste column of the school record of the petitioner's
grandfather Maroti Dhondiba Sangewar wherein he was described as a
'Magas' of 1973, as a contrary entry. Petitioner's great grandfather in
the revenue record of 1342 Fasli (1932 A.D.) was described as
belonging to 'Chhatri' and being a pre-constitutional record, the
committee ought to have accepted it and validated the claim.
3. Per contra, learned AGP would support the order.
He would demonstrate that the petitioner has resorted to a clear
forgery and this alone should be the ground to discard his claim.
He would advert our attention to the photocopy of 1342 Fasli revenue
record. He would submit that though the register has been maintained
in Modi script, word 'Chhatri' has been subsequently added in
Devanagari. It is so evident and would substantiate the committee's
3 WP / 8166 / 2024
inference of there being forgery and refusing to rely upon it. Since the
petitioner had not produced any other reliable record, rather there was
voluminous contrary record, wherein petitioner's blood relatives were
discarded as 'Shimpi', 'Magas', the older record having greater
probative value belies the petitioner's claim.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the original papers, including the coloured photocopy of the
relevant page of 1342 Fasli revenue record, stated to be describing
petitioner's great grandfather as 'Chhatri'. A bare look at this entry
would demonstrate that though the rest of the entries in the register are
in Modi script and even this one is also elsewhere in Modi script, the
word 'Chhatri' has been added in Devanagari and the manner in which
it has been written, clearly demonstrates that it was done by way of a
manipulation at a later point of time. Therefore, though there cannot be
a dispute about the translation, this circumstance is so evident as
would reveal that the petitioner is not a man of truth and has resorted
to such manipulation and is seeking to derive the benefit of the
reservation policy. This would amount to fraud on the constitution. We
do not see any reason to dislodge the inference drawn by the
committee in this respect.
5. Though there are few favourable entreis of 'Chhatri' in the
school record of the petitioner and his blood relatives, the afore-
4 WP / 8166 / 2024
mentioned circumstance, in our considered view, is sufficient enough to
dismiss the petition.
6. The favourable record being relied upon by the petitioner is
of a quite recent time of 1970 and cannot substantiate the tribe claim.
7. Following the principles laid down in paragraph no. 25 of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, in the
absence of any documentary evidence, failure of the petitioner to get
through the affinity test, is also sufficient to discard his claim.
8. The committee has taken a plausible view which cannot be
interferred with in the writ jurisdiction.
9. The petition is dismissed.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
