Bombay High Court
Yogesh Namdeo Koli And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:1304-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 WRIT PETITION NO.7764 OF 2019
1 Yogesh Namdeo Koli,
Age 29 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
2 Gopal Ashok Koli,
Age 32 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
3 Asha Uttam Adakmal (Koli),
Age 39 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
4 Kalpana Uttam Koli,
Age 37 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
5 Ganesh Uttam Koli,
Age 33 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
6 Bhagwan Uttam Koli,
Age 30 yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
... Petitioners
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
2 WP_7764_2019_Jd
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar.
Through its Deputy Director (R),
Nandurbar.
3 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Shahada, Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar.
... Respondents
...
Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates
for the parties finally, by consent.
2 The petitioners prayer for issuing Tribe Certificate for "Koli Dhor"
Tribe came to be rejected by Sub Divisional Officer, Shahada, Tq. Shahada,
3 WP_7764_2019_Jd
Dist. Nandurbar on 06.01.2017. Thereafter they had preferred an appeal
before respondent No.2 - Committee, however, their appeal came to be
dismissed on 07.02.2019. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court
for following reliefs by invoking the constitution provisions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
"B) By way of an appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature
may kindly quash and set aside impugned orders dated 07.02.2019
passed by scrutiny committee and orders dated 06.01.2017 passed by
Sub Divisional Officer, Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar.
C) By way of an appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature
may kindly issue direction against the Sub Divisional Officer,
Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar, to issue tribe certificate in favour of
petitioners as belongs to 'Koli Dhor' Scheduled Tribe."
3 Petitioners are the relatives i.e. from one family and, therefore,
approached respondent No.3 with a request to issue Tribe Certificate to them.
It was contended that they belong to 'Dhor Koli'. Documents were produced
before respondent No.3, who negatived the claim on the ground that some of
the documents, which were produced on record of the family members, show
the caste as 'Tokre Koli' and not 'Dhor Koli'. The petitioners contend that in
pursuance of Rule 4(9) of the Scheduled Tribe's Rule, 2003 framed under the
Verification Act, 2000 the revenue officer has to conduct an inquiry regarding
4 WP_7764_2019_Jd
the tribe claim by visiting the place of the petitioners and also to take into
consideration the documents in support. The verification of the documents
has not been done in proper manner. Reasons ought to have been recorded.
The exercise undertaken by the authorities is as if they were issuing validity
certificate. The certificate that was claimed was subject to the validity
certificate and, therefore, there was no hurdle for respondent No.3 to issue
the Tribe Certificate.
4 Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.V. Jadhavar for the petitioners and
learned AGP Mr. P.S. Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5 Important point to be noted is that all the petitioners claim for
issuing Tribe Certificate appears to have been rejected by respondent No.3 on
the same day i.e. on 06.01.2017, but by different orders. In the said order
respondent No.3 has also taken into consideration the area restriction. It is
observed that persons from 'Tokre Koli' Tribe are not found in Nandurbar
district. Respondent No.2 - Committee in its appellate jurisdiction has given
almost the same reasons. It was observed that though the appellants were
from same family, there are documents showing that they are from 'Dhor
Koli', 'Tokre Koli' and 'Koli' Tribe.
6 The first and the foremost fact ought to have been considered by
5 WP_7764_2019_Jd
respondent No.3 was that the said authority was deciding the claim of the
petitioners that they are of 'Dhor Koli' Tribe and the said proceedings was for
issuance of Tribe Certificate. Such certificate would be subject to the validity.
The oldest documents were appeared to be from birth and death register of
the year 1947 that was the pre-constitutional document. The three
documents which were produced were showing that birth of Uttam Handu
Anaji was on 28.11.1947, Bansi Handu Anaji who was born on 07.11.1946
and Kanti Bandu Anaji born on 23.08.1947. It is in respect of father of
petitioner Nos.3 to 6, uncle of petitioner Nos.3 to 6 and paternal aunt of
petitioner Nos.3 to 6. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 makes
a mention about these three documents, but there is absolutely no reason for
discarding these pre-constitutional documents. Same course was adopted in
the appeal. Further, there appears to be another document of pre-
constitutional era of the year 1912, which was the school leaving certificate
of Manga Muka Koli, who can also be seen in the genealogy as belonging to
the family of the petitioners. In the said school leaving certificate also his
caste/Tribe has been said to be 'Dhor Koli'. Thus, the said school record of
the year 1912 appears to be the oldest document and when there was no
material before respondent No.3 as well as then in appeal before respondent
No.2 to show that there is any manipulation in the said record, those
documents ought to have been considered as prima facie documents to
6 WP_7764_2019_Jd
support the contention of the petitioners and on that basis the certificate
ought to have been issued. The rules for issuing Tribe Certificate show that
prima facie documents are required to be considered at the time of issuing
certificate and, therefore, both the authorities have erred in rejecting the
claim of the petitioners. Case is made out for exercise of the constitutional
powers of this Court. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1 The Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B)
and (C).
2 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
