Bombay High Court
Dhananjay Amrut Sonawane vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2281-DB
1 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4551 OF 2011
Dhananjay Amrut Sonawane,
age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o Javkhedesim, Post Nipane,
Tq. Erandol, Dist Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar Through it's
Member Secretary.
2. Collector, Jalgaon
District Jalgaon.
3. Sub Divisional Officer,
Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
4. The Taluka Magistrate (Tahsildar),
Jalgoan, Dist. Jalgaon. Respondents
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4553 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10488 OF 2019
IN WP NO.4553 OF 2011
Neha d/o Liladhar Sonawane,
age 18 yrs, Occ. Education,
R/o Khedi (Bhokri), Tq. Chopda,
Dist Jalgaon
at present R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar,
New Sangvi, Pune-27. Petitioner
2 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
Versus
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar Through it's
Member Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer,
Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Maharashtra Institute of Technology
(Engineering College)
Kothrud, Pune 38,
Through its Principal. Respondents
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4554 OF 2011
Nivedita d/o Liladhar Sonawane,
age 24 yrs, Occ. Education,
R/o Khedi (Bhokri), Tq. Chopda,
Dist Jalgaon
at present R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar,
New Sangvi, Pune-27. Petitioner
Versus
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar Through it's
Member Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer,
Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil
College of Engineering,
Vilad Gat, P.O. MIDC,
Ahmednagar - 414 111.
Through it's Principal. Respondents
...
3 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondents : Mr. P.S. Patil
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Reserved on : January 18, 2024
Pronounced on : February 02, 2024
...
COMMON JUDGMENT :- (Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning a common
order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating tribe claim of the
petitioners as belonging to "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe.
3. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are belonging
to "Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe" and Competent Authority
issued caste certificates to that effect. Proposal of the
petitioners for verification of Tribe claim were forwarded to
respondent no.1-Committee. The Committee caused vigilance
inquiry as well as affinity test. The petitioners were served
report of vigilance cell with show cause notice which was duly
replied. The petitioners supported their claim by voluminous
evidence in the form of validity certificates granted in favour of
4 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
blood relations conferring the tribe status as "Tokre Koli".
However, the Committee, on erroneous count, invalidated caste
claim of the petitioners. Mr. Deshmukh would invite attention
of this Court towards validity certificates issued in favour of
Hina Vijay Sonawane dated 16.10.2006, Sanjay Amrut
Sonwane dated 28.3.2008, Sumit Jagdish Sonwane dated
5.2.2007, Amit Jagdish Sonwane dated 25.1.2007, Swati
Jagdish Sonawane dated 15.1.2007 as well as Genealogy
depicting relationship with validity holders to contend that
many close relations of the petitioners are already conferred
with validity of Tribe claim as belonging to "Tokre Koli". All
those validity certificates are intact and never being subjected
to any proceeding like recall or revocation. The Committee
based on some contra entries like "Koli" or "Hindu Koli" in the
record of some blood relations of the petitioners proceeded to
invalidate claim of the petitioners dehors established legal
position.
4. Mr. Deshmukh would invite attention of this Court
to the reasoning adopted by the Committee and submit that no
specific finding is arrived that the caste validity conferred upon
blood relations of the petitioners was product of fraud,
misrepresentation or intentional suppression of material facts.
On the other hand, he would point out that all contra entries
were before the Committee when the validity is conferred upon
Hina, Swati, Amit, Sumit and Sanjay, who are blood relatives
of the petitioners form the paternal side. To buttress his
contentions, Mr. Deshmukh would rely upon the observations
of Supreme Court in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs.
5 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee no.1 and
others reported in [2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401] to contend that in
absence of findings of the Committee that caste validity relied
upon by the petitioners are either fraudulent or lacks necessary
procedure; the Committee could not have ignored the same.
He would submit that mere non-disclosure of any contra entry
would not constitute fraud to discard the validity conferred on
blood relations.
5. Per contra, Mr. P. S. Patil, learned AGP appearing
for the respondents would submit that the Committee has
relied upon many contra entries which were suppressed by the
validity holders while prosecuting their caste claim before the
Committee. He would invite attention of this Court to the
Chart referred in the Vigilance Cell report. Particularly, entry
in the name of Shamrao Budho Koli dated 9.9.1940 and Amrut
Budho Koli dated 23.6.1941 indicating that the father of
petitioner Dhananjay and grand father of petitioner Neha and
Nivedita were shown to be belonging to 'Hindu Koli' at the
time of admission in the school in the year 1940 and 1941
respectively. Many entries of post independent period (Era) in
relation to blood relatives are indicative of the caste as Hindu
Suryawanshi Koli. He would therefore submit that earlier
validity in favour of blood relations of petitioner does not
assume significance while appreciating their claim. Mr. Patil,
in support of his contentions, relies on the observations of the
Supreme Court of India in case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs.
Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others reported in [(2008) 9
SCC 54] and Pournima Suryakant Pawar Versus State of
6 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
Maharashtra reported in (2013) 3 SCC 690 and Maharashtra
Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of
Maharashtra reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 785.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by
the learned advocates appearing for respective parties. We
have perused original record of the proceeding before the
Committee. The learned AGP made available record in respect
of the validity holders whose certificates are relied upon by the
petitioners. Pertinently, petitioners have supported their claim
by the validities conferred upon many blood relatives. All
those validities are issued during the period from 2006 to
2008. None of the validity certificate is subjected to review or
revocation till this date. There is no dispute about the
relationship of the petitioners with the validity holders
particularly of Hina Vijay Sonawane, Sanjay Amrut Sonwane,
Sumit Jagdish Sonwane, Amit Jagdish Sonwane and Swati
Jagdish Sonawane. The Supreme Court of India in the Case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others in Civil Appeal No.2502 of
2022 (supra) observed in paragraph no.22 thus :-
"22. We can also contemplate one more scenario
which is found in many cases. These are the
cases where the applicant relies upon caste
validity certificates issued to his blood relatives.
Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be
issued either by the Scrutiny Committee
constituted in terms of the directions issued in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (1994) 6 SCC 241
or constituted under the Rules framed under the
2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny
Committee must ascertain whether the
certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny
Committee will have to decide whether the
7 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
applicant has established that the person to
whom the validity certificate relied upon by him
has been issued is his blood relative. For that
purpose, the applicant must establish his precise
and exact relationship with the person to whom
the validity certificate has been granted.
Moreover, an inquiry will have to be made by
the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity
certificate has been granted to the blood relative
of the applicant by the concerned Scrutiny
Committee after holding due inquiry and
following due procedure. Therefore, if the
Scrutiny Committee has issued a validity
certificate contemplated in terms of the decision
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (1994) 6
SCC 241, the examination will be whether the
inquiry contemplated by the said decision has
been held. If the certificate relied upon is issued
after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the
Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain
whether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had
followed the procedure laid down therein as
well as in the ST Rules or the SC Rules, as the
case may be. For this verification, the Scrutiny
Committee can exercise powers conferred on it
by Section 9(d) by requisitioning the record of
the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, which
has issued the validity certificate to the blood
relative of the applicant. If the record has been
destroyed, the Scrutiny Committee can ascertain
whether a due inquiry has been held on the
basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee by which caste validity has been
granted to the blood relative of the applicant. If
it is established that the validity certificate has
been granted without holding a proper inquiry
or without recording reasons, obviously, the
caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the
caste certificate only on the basis of such validity
certificate of the blood relative."
7. Applying aforesaid principles of law when we
examine the original file in respect of validity holder i.e. Hina
Vijay Sonawane, we find that the validity certificate has been
8 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
issued by the Competent Committee established under the
provisions of Act of 2000. Similarly, report of Vigilance Cell
was procured. The Committee relied upon the validity granted
in favour of distant relative namely Sahebrao Chuna Patil
(Sonawane) as well as Jagdish Shamrao Sonawane.
Pertinently, claim of Jagdish Shamrao Sonawane has been
upheld by order of this Court in Writ Petition No.1704 of 1993,
Committee had also referred applicant Hina to affinity test. It
can be seen that the contra entry in respect of school record of
Amrut Budha Sonawane i.e. grand father of Hina and Vijay
Amrut Sonawane i.e. father of Hina records caste as "Hindu
Koli". It was before committee during the said inquiry. The
Committee after considering the positive and contra evidence
issued validity certificate to Hina .
8. Perusal of the observations of the Committee in
present case shows that validity granted to Hina was discarded
from consideration since it was granted based on validities
granted prior to 1994 i.e. before the judgment of the Supreme
Court in case of Madhuri Patil. In our opinion, such
observations of the Committee cannot be sustained. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay
Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
no.1 and others (supra) specifically observed in paragraph
no.7 thus :-
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when
during the course of inquiry the candidate
submits a caste validity certificate granted
earlier certifying that a blood relation of the
candidate belongs to the same caste as that
claimed by the applicant, the committee may
grant such certificate without calling for
9 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the
committee finds that the earlier caste certificate
is tainted by fraud or is granted without
jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to
follow and may refuse to grant certificate to
the applicant before it."
9. Applying aforesaid principles of law, unless it is
observed by committee that the caste validity of blood relative
relied upon by the claimants was product of fraud or
misrepresentation or outcome of procedural defect, couldn't
have been discarded from consideration. When we balance
validity already granted in favour of blood relations of the
petitioners with so-called contra entries which were relied by
the Committee, in case of petitioners, we hold that the validity
relied by petitioners ought to have been given due credence. In
the present case, the petitioners have relied upon more than six
validity certificates granted to the close blood relations which
are intact till this date. Although, learned AGP relying upon
the observations of the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and
others reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54 (supra)
submitted that when earlier validity certificate is granted
ignoring vital evidences, the Committee can arrive at different
conclusion, we do not find that such observations of the
Supreme Court of India has any application in the facts of the
present case. As we have noted that even contra entries relied
upon by the Committee in the present case were before the
Committee while granting validity in favour of Hina and other
blood relatives and committee after considering such contra
evidence issued validity to Hina. Therefore, now it is not open
for the Committee to take different stand than what has been
10 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt
taken in case of Hina in the year 2006. Resultantly, we find
that the Committee committed patent illegality while
invalidating the caste claim of the petitioners. Hence, we
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Writ Petition nos.4551 of 2011, Writ Petition
No.4553 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.4554 of 2011
are hereby allowed.
ii. The common order passed by the respondent no.1-
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar dated 28th March,
2011 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar shall
issue caste validity certificates in favour of the
petitioners for "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe within a
period of one (1) month.
iv. Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Rule is
made absolute in above terms.
v. Pending civil application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
...
aaa/- F.
