Bombay High Court
Ku. Arti D/O Narsinghrao Tupparwar vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 30 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:1382-DB
-- 1 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2018
Ku. Arti d/o Narsinghrao Tupparwar
Aged : 52 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. : In front of Swastik School, .. Petitioner
Naya Nakasha, Nagpur - 16
Versus
1. The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan,
Giripeth, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur
through its Member
2. The Municipal Corporation, Nagpur .. Respondents
through its Commissioner,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai - 400 032
Ms. Apurva Kolhe, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.M.Ghogre, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Mr. A.M.Kukday, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 30, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Court : Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 7
-- 2 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
(2) The impugned order dated 13/03/2018, the tribe
claim of the petitioner as that of she belonging to "Mannewar"
(Schedule Tribe) came to be rejected, as such this petition.
(3) Amongst other, the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner are that the entries in the caste column in
relation to the petitioner of 1987, 1979 and 1975, particularly in
relation to the School documents speaks that she belonging to
"Mannewar" caste (Schedule Tribe). According to her, the petitioner
has produced on record documents in relation to father and uncle
which depicts entry of "Hinduism", "Mannewar" etc. That being so, the
contentions are since "Telugu" is not a caste, but a language and the
"Mannewar" entry speaks of the petitioner belonging to Scheduled
Tribe, the Committee has erred in recording a finding that petitioner
does not belong to "Mannewar" (Schedule Tribe). Her next contention
is that the Committee without recording any finding on the issue of
satisfaction of affinity test as to the manner and mode in which the
petitioner has failed to satisfy the same, has rejected the claim of the
petitioner.
(4) So as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the
counsel for the petitioner would urge that the entry "Telanga" in
relation to Laxmanrao, the cousin grandfather is of the year 1945.
According to her, the entry "Telanga" has to be read as "Telugu" or in
PAGE 2 OF 7
-- 3 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
alternate, even if, it is accepted that "Telanga" is an entry carried out in
the year 2014 in "Nomadic Tribes-C" category, the Court is required to
consider the claim of the petitioner as was existing on the date when
the caste certificate was issued.
(5) She would further claim that the Committee has
ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of
Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another
reported in 2007 (1) SCC 80. She would urge that from the
aforesaid judgment, it is amply clear that even if, there are no
documents of Pre-Independence era, still the petitioner can lodged a
claim for issuance of validity certificate. In addition, her contentions
are - the Committee should have traveled extra mile, thereby looking it
to the caste of the petitioner as that of belonging to "Mannewar"
(Schedule Tribe) and should have granted the claim as prayed.
(6) As against above, the contentions of the Assistant
Government Pleader are - the documents, the entries as are found in
the records of the petitioner or her relatives are required to be
interpreted, as it is and the Committee is not empowered to interpret
the entries. According to him, the entry "Telanga" which is recognized
as the "Nomadic Tribe-C", the "Telugu Reddy" being an independent
caste cannot support the claim of the petitioner.
PAGE 3 OF 7
-- 4 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
(7) It is further claimed that "Telugu" being a language,
even if is taken into account, that by itself will not give leverage to the
petitioner to claim that she belongs to "Mannewar", (Scheduled Tribe).
That being so, a prayer is made for rejection of the petition.
(8) We have appreciated the submissions. The fact
remains that petitioner has already superannuated from the service.
The petitioner so as to substantiate her claim, has relied upon the
entries as reflected in her own records viz. the certificate issued by the
Mannewar Samaj on 15/10/1979, the entry "Telugu" in relation to
herself in the School Leaving Certificate of 1971, the entry "Mannewar",
(Scheduled Tribe) of 1975 in relation to herself in School Leaving
Certificate. In addition to above, she has also relied upon the Service
Book of her father and the School Leaving certificate of July, 1950,
which records Hinduism in the caste column. Apart from above, in the
School record of the cousin uncle Chandrabhushan, the caste is claimed
to be recorded as "Mannewar" on 06/06/1973.
(9) Since the Committee found variance in the entries of
caste in the various documents pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12 of
the Rules, referred the claim to the Vigilance Cell for causing home and
field enquiry. The enquiry report was accordingly submitted by
Vigilance Cell to which the petitioners submitted her explanation.
PAGE 4 OF 7
-- 5 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
(10) The perusal of the documents which are produced by
the petitioner in support of tribe claim as that of belonging to
"Mannewar", (Scheduled Tribe) is concerned, the fact remains that
entry of 1945 in relation to cousin uncle of the petitioner is shown to be
"Telanga". "Telanga" is an independent entry as has been claimed by
the petitioner recorded in the Nomadic Tribe order under category - C.
Even if such entry is recorded in the year 2014 that itself will not give
leverage to the petitioner to claim that on the date of issuance of the
caste certificate, the Court is required to adjudicate the claim of the
petitioner. The fact remains that the Committee has every right to
adjudicate the claim of the petitioner considering the documents which
are placed before it. The documents which are of Pre-Independent era
have more probative value and can be accepted in evidence. Once the
"Telanga" is recorded as an entry in the Nomadic Tribe-C category, the
document of the year 1945 in relation to cousin uncle of the petitioner
cannot be found to be the basis for issuance of the validity certificate.
(11) Apart from above, the real uncle of the petitioner
Shankarrao is concerned, in the School record his caste is recorded as
"Telugu Reddy". Even, if it is accepted that "Telugu" is a language as
has already been determined by this Court, still the Court cannot be
ignored of the fact that the "Reddy" is an independent caste recognized
and that being so, the said document cannot be considered for
PAGE 5 OF 7
-- 6 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
supporting the case of the petitioner as that of "Mannewar",(Scheduled
Tribe). The other entries of the years 1948 and 1952 in relation to
uncle Anandrao, and uncle Dharmraj, respectively speaks of "Telugu"
and not "Mannewar". Even if "Telugu" is considered to be a language
and the said entry is ignored, still this Court or the Committee cannot
substitute the said entry to that of "Mannewar" and read the said entry
to the benefit of the petitioner, as there are no such powers vested with
the Committee or this Court to record such finding.
(12) The only entry which supports the claim of the
petitioner is of 1973 in relation to cousin uncle Chandrabhushan. As far
as said uncle is concerned, he born to Laxmanrao i.e. cousin
grandfather of the petitioner. Laxmanrao's entry as that of "Telanga"
recorded in 1945 has already been dealt with by the Court, as could
inferred from the finding recorded herein above.
(13) The person gets his caste by birth. Once the entry
in the caste column of father of Chandrabhushan, namely, Laxmanrao
is recorded as "Telanga" which is an independent caste, the
Chandrabhushan owes an explanation including that of petitioner, as to
how the "Mannewar" entry in 1973 is carried out in his record. There is
no convincing explaination to that effect coming forward from the
petitioner.
PAGE 6 OF 7
-- 7 -- Judgment WP 2628.2018.odt
(14) As such, on the basis of documents which are
produced on record in our opinion, the Committee was quite justified in
recording finding that the petitioner is not belonging to "Mannewar",
(Scheduled Tribe).
(15) As far as the issue of non-satisfaction of affinity test
is concerned, the fact remains that in the case in hand, even if the
petitioner has placed on record in support of grant of tribe claim of
"Mannewar", (Scheduled Tribe), the said documents have not supported
the case of the petitioner. The Committee, thereafter, has gone into
the issue of applying affinity test and considered the complete
information furnished by the petitioner in support of the queries in
relation to the affinity test raised during the home enquiry and hearing.
The Committee in tabular form has dealt with the applicability of the
affinity test, the custom traditions followed by the petitioner and has
recorded a finding that the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging
"Mannewar", (Scheduled Tribe). No fault would be noticed in the
applicability of the affinity test in case of the petitioner. That being so,
no case for causing interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made
out by the petitioner. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/02/2024 11:58:56
