Bombay High Court
Jayesh Ravindra Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2172-DB
{1}
wp 11904.21 R.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11904 OF 2021
Jayesh S/o. Ravindra Thakur,
Age 32 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Gat No. 523/C, Plot No.1,
Varsha Colony, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
.. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar,
Division, Nandurbar,
through its Member Secretary
.. Respondents
Mr. Sushant Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT [ S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J]:-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned advocate for the parties.
{2}
wp 11904.21 R.odt
2. The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, thereby impugning the order dated 20th
August 2021 passed by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the
petitioner for "Thakur Scheduled Tribe".
3. Mr Sushant Yeramwar, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur"
scheduled Tribe. The competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Jalgaon issued caste certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that
he belongs to Thakur scheduled tribe. While petitioner was pursuing his
education, the proposal for verification of caste certificate issued to the
petitioner has been forwarded to the respondent No.2 - Committee which
is duly supported by affidavit containing genealogy, the caste validity
granted in favour of the petitioner's cousin namely Atul Prakash Thakur
and many other old documents since 1933 supporting the claim of the
petitioner. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice alongwith
vigilance enquiry report dated 21st February 2005. The petitioner filed
his detailed reply clarifying the adverse remarks. However, the
committee invalidated his caste claim for erroneous reasons.
4. Mr. N.S. Takale, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.
1 and 2 supports the impugned order contending that the Committee
has recorded adequate reasons for discarding validity granted to cousin
of the petitioner. Further, there is no other acceptable evidence to justify
the caste claim of the petitioner.
{3}
wp 11904.21 R.odt
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for the parties. We have perused the original file
pertaining to the caste claim of the petitioner, so also, the caste claim of
Atul Prakash Thakur who is conferred with the caste validity. Apparently,
the petitioner relies upon the caste validity granted in favour of Atul
Prakash Thakur. The genealogy is tendered alongwith the affidavit of Atul
Prakash Thakur which clearly indicates that Atul is the cousin of the
petitioner. The vigilance report or the observations of the Committee
nowhere doubts the correctness of the genealogy or relationship between
the petitioner and Atul. Apparently, Atul is the close blood relative of the
petitioner who is conferred validity under order of the competent
authority dated 26th October 2004. Till this date the validity granted in
favour of Atul Prakash Thakur is not subjected to any proceeding for
revocation or cancellation.
6. We have perused the original file granting validity in favour
of Atul Prakash Thakur. We find that the vigilance inquiry was carried
and report of such inquiry was procured by the committee before issuing
caste validity in favour of said Atul. There were no adverse remarks as
regards the caste claim. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
observations of the supreme court of India in the matter of Apurva Vinay
Nichale versus state of Maharashtra reported in 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401
which reads thus :-
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when
during the course of enquiry 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 Vigilance
{4}
wp 11904.21 R.odt
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."
7. In view of the aforestated observations of the Supreme Court
of India, there is no reason for us to enter into deeper inquiry when the
petitioner has placed reliance on validity granted in favour of Atul who is
cousin of the petitioner. Apparently, there is no dispute as regards
relationship of the petitioner with Atul. It is trite that in case the
Committee is of the opinion that earlier validity granted to the blood
relation of the claimant is tainted with fraud or misrepresentation, the
Committee is entitled to discard such validity certificate from its
consideration and the claimant in such case will have to independently
establish his caste claim. However in the present case, we find that Atul
is granted validity almost 20 years back and till this date no such clouds
of doubt regarding his validity could be raised. The Committee has a
simply observed that it would like to have legal opinion on the aforesaid
aspect. However, the committee does not record that any fraudulent
aspects were noted in the matter of validity certificate conferred upon
Atul.
8. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the
case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657 which deals
with grant of validity in respect of Thakur Schedule Tribe, it is observed
that when the applicant relies upon the caste validity certificate issued to
the blood relative, the committee must ascertain whether the certificate
{5}
wp 11904.21 R.odt
is genuine. Secondly, the scrutiny committee will have to decide whether
applicant has established his blood relation with validity holder and
whether the caste validity to the blood relative is granted after following
due procedure. In our opinion, all the aforesaid parameters appears to be
complied in caste claim of Atul. Therefore, the scrutiny committee was
under mandate to grant caste validity to petitioner based on validity
accorded to Atul. On perusal of the order passed by the Committee, we
find that the observations of the committee are nothing but mere surmise
and there were no valid reasons for discarding the validity granted in
favour of Atul as evidence in case of the petitioner.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds. We pass the
following order :-
ORDER
[A] The writ petition is allowed;
[B] The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 -
Committee dated 20th August, 2021 invalidating the Tribe Claim of
the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside;
[C] The respondent No.2 - Committee is directed to issue
certificate of Caste Validity for Thakur Scheduled Tribe in favour of
the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of this order;
[D] Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to
costs.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
Signed by: G R TOKE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 02/02/2024 11:14:55
