Bombay High Court
Trupti Laxman Thakur vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 30 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:20133-DB
1 wp 4644.09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4644 OF 2009
Kum. Trupti D/o Laxman Thakur,
Age : 23 years, Occu. : Student,
R/o 30, Shram Saffalya Colony,
Gondur Road, Near Home Guard Office,
Walwandi, Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Through its Dy. Director (Research),
Nandurbar, Division, Nandurbar.
3. The Director (Education),
Maharashtra Council of Agriculture
Education and Research, Pune.
4. The Registrar,
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.
5. The Chief Conservator of Forest
Vanbhavan, Ramgiri Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
6. The Conservator of Forests,
Near Govt. Printing Press,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. Respondents
2 wp 4644.09
Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. M. Jaware, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri M. N. Navandar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4743 OF 2009
Laxman S/o Mohansing Thakur,
Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service,
R/o 30, Shram Saffalya Colony,
Gondur Road, Near Home Guard Office,
Walwandi, Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Through its Dy. Director (Research),
Nandurbar, Division, Nandurbar.
3. The Executive Magistrate,
Sindkheda, District Dhule.
4. The Deputy Director of Accounts
and Treasury, Kosh Bhawan,
Near Collector Office, Nasik
Region, Nasik.
5. The Treasury Officer
Collector Compound, Sakri
Road, Nandurbar. .. Respondents
Shri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri V. M. Jaware, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
3 wp 4644.09
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 30 AUGUST, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Heard both the sides finally in view of the exigency in the
matter.
2. The petitioners are daughter and father respectively, whose
tribe certificates are invalidated by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny
Committee vide distinct judgments and orders dated 26.06.2009
in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 2009 and dated 08.07.2009 in Writ
Petition No. 4743 of 2009, which are under challenge.
3. The petitioners are relying on pre-constitutional record of
their blood relatives and the certificate of validity issued to
Prakash Mohansing Thakur, who happens to be real brother of
the one of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that pre-constitutional record was already verified in the
matter of Prakash and was found to be genuine. The validity
certificate issued to Prakash is reliable one. In view of the old
record having greater probative value, the petitioners are entitled
to receive certificates of validity.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the
impugned judgments and orders. He would submit that the
petitioners could not satisfy the affinity test. The Scrutiny
Committee is justified in rejecting the tribe claims considering
place of residence of the petitioners and their forefathers. It is
4 wp 4644.09
further contended that, the petitioners and their relatives upon
which reliance is placed are highly qualified and in all
probabilities they are belonging to upper caste. The certificate of
validity of Prakash is not reliable one and it was issued relying
upon the judgment of the High Court rendered in Writ Petition
Nos. 2746 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 5454 of 1998.
5. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. There
is no dispute that petitioner - Laxman in Writ Petition No. 4743
of 2009 is the real brother of validity holder Prakash Mohansing
Thakur. In case of Prakash vigilance enquiry was conducted.
Birth record of Bhagwan Shivaji Thakur of the year 1925, his
school record of the year 1937 and birth record of Mohan Shivla
of 1928 was already verified by the vigilance cell and found to be
genuine. As the documents are pre-constitutional, in view of the
law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter
of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh. L. J.
401 greater probative value is attached to them and they
corroborate the tribe claim.
6. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter
of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326 that
affinity test is not a conclusive proof. It is not a litmus test.
When there is clinching documentary evidence on record the
affinity test is inconsequential.
5 wp 4644.09
7. It has been recorded by the Committee that the place of
residence of the petitioner and their forefathers is not compatible
with the tribe claims. This aspect has already been dealt with by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Palghat Jila Thandan Samuday
Sanrakshan Samiti and another Vs. State of Kerala : (1994) 1 SCC
351. We, therefore, do not approve the submissions of the learned
A. G. P.
8. Our attention is invited to the findings recorded by the
Committee in respect of validity holder Prakash Mohansing
Thakur. Prakash was issued with the validity certificate relying
upon the judgment rendered by the High Court and lateron a
different view was taken. The Committee has passed impugned
orders on 26.06.2009 and 08.07.2009 respectively. Thereafter, the
law has underwent a change. We are governed by the latest
judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra). Considering paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in above referred matter, we are of the
considered view that the validity certificate issued to Prakash
would enure to the benefit of the petitioners.
9. It is further contended by the learned A. G. P. that
petitioners and their relatives are highly qualified and in the
record of right Thakur is mentioned which is synonymous with
the upper caste Thakur. This submission also cannot be
countenanced because in the caste column specific caste Thakur
is mentioned in old record. We have already recorded that the old
6 wp 4644.09
record has a greater probative value. We are of the considered
view that the petitioners have made out case for issuance of
validity certificates. The committee will be at liberty to conduct
reverification if such occasion arises. We find that the impugned
judgments and orders are unsustainable and, therefore, we pass
following order :
ORDER
a. The writ petitions are allowed partly.
b. The impugned judgments and orders dated 26.06.2009 in
Writ Petition No. 4644 of 2009 and dated 08.07.2009 in Writ
Petition No. 4743 of 2009 passed by the respondent No. 2/scrutiny
committee are quashed and set aside.
c. The respondent No. 2/scrutiny committee shall issue tribe
validity certificates to the petitioners of 'Thakur' (scheduled
tribe) immediately in prescribed proforma.
d. The validity certificates of the petitioners shall be subject
to out come of the reverification proposed to be undertaken by the
Committee.
e. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
f. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
