Bombay High Court
Niklesh Shivram Zinjurde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:716-DB
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4368 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12309 OF 2023
IN WP/4368/2020
Niklesh s/o Shivram Zinjurde
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Education
R/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Principal,
Raje Shahaji Junior College,
(Art, Science and Commerce),
Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4369 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12308 OF 2023
IN WP/4369/2020
Yogesh s/o Sanjay Zinjurde
Age: 21 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Toki, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad .. Petitioner
[1]
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Principal,
Raje Shahaji Junior College,
(Art, Science and Commerce),
Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.5988 OF 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12310 OF 2023
IN WP/5988/2020
Ritik s/o Shivram Zinjurde
Age: 19 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
[2]
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
3. The Principal,
Raje Shahaji Junior College,
(Art, Science and Commerce),
Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioners in all the writ petitions.
Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for respondents - State in all the writ petitions.
Mr. S. N. Lale Yelwatkar, Advocate for applicants in all the civil applications.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 10, 2024.
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :
-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for
the appearing parties finally by consent.
2. By these petitions, the petitioners, who are the relatives i.e. two of
them are real brothers and another is cousin, are seeking quashment of the
impugned judgment and order invalidating their caste claim.
3. The petitioners claim that they belong to 'Koli Mahadev', which a
Scheduled Tribe. After their proposals for validation were referred to
respondent No.2 Committee, the Vigilance Cell has conducted inquiry and
after the report was received, it is stated that respondent No.2 - Committee
had issued show cause notice to the petitioners on 05.08.2019 along with
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
the copy of said report to file their say. The say was given. Thereafter, the
common judgment and order has been passed.
4. The petitioners contend that at the time of filing verification
proposals by Yogesh and Ritik, inadvertently they have not given detailed
genealogy, but the detailed genealogy of the family of the petitioners was
given in the vigilance inquiry. It is the contention of the petitioners that
they could not get a proper opportunity to explain the contra entries and,
in fact, there was no interpolations in the documents, which they relied.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners contend that the oldest document was
the Khasra Pahani Patrak of the year 1954-1955 and in the judgment,
respondent No.2 Committee has unnecessarily concluded that 'Koli
Mahadev' word has been inserted later on. He prayed for remand, though
it has not been specifically prayed in the petitions so that the petitioners
can get a proper opportunity to explain the alleged contra entries.
5. Learned AGP has strongly opposed and submitted that a detailed
inquiry has been conducted. Proper opportunity was given to the
petitioners by issuing show cause notice to file reply in respect of the report
submitted by the Vigilance Cell and after hearing the learned Advocate for
the petitioners, the order has been passed. Reasons have been given.
Under the said circumstance, there is no question of giving any more
opportunity.
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
6. We had considered the record and proceedings, which was made
available by the respondents. The photocopy of the Khasra Pahani Patrak
in fact does not appear to be in different ink or handwriting. The entry at
Serial No.26 relied by the present petitioners is in respect of Rangulal
Shankar. If the committee was of the opinion that it is in different
handwriting, then the original ought to have been called. Mere reliance on
the Vigilance Cell report in that respect will not be proper. Further, it
appears that the Vigilance Cell Officer has not recorded the statement of
the revenue officer/clerk, who is the custodian of said Khasra Pahani
Patrak. In order to arrive at a conclusion that a particular entry is in
different handwriting and ink, only that page need not be considered. Few
pages from the said Khasra Pahani Patrak should have been perused.
7. It appears that the Vigilance Officer has collected school record of
various relatives of the petitioners. What was disturbing is that the
documents themselves were not collected, but certificate or opinion of the
headmaster on a chart has been taken. One of the old entry in respect of
admission to the school of paternal aunt of the petitioners is dated
19.07.1976 and that of uncle is dated 27.07.1978. The headmaster himself
is certifying that the entry in respect of caste is in different handwriting and
ink. When he is supposed to be the custodian of the document, such remark
was not sufficient. He will have to explain as to when that change or
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
insertion would have been made. The document itself was not before the
committee. Same is the case as regards school record of relative Zinjurde
Ankush Baburao, Zinjurde Sanjay Bandu and Zinjurde Raju Laxman.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that unless the record itself is not before
the committee or clear photocopy as if it was the original (in which the
clear distinction between the change in the handwriting and the ink is
visible), is before the committee or it was so perused personally by the
Vigilance Cell Officer, these documents could not have been discarded by
the committee, when those documents were in favour of the petitioner.
8. As regards the show cause notice is concerned, it appears that the
copy of the report is given and it is vaguely stated that there are contra
entries. Further, in respect of genealogy is concerned, we agree to the
submissions that people generally give a limited genealogy on which they
want to rely. They may not give the complete genealogy. A person unless
has knowledge about the names of the ancestors will not give the
genealogy, but when he has the knowledge, then he ought to have given it,
but for some mistaken fact he has not given the complete genealogy and
that does not mean that there was no relationship. Therefore, an
opportunity ought to have been given by the committee to the petitioners
to explain the genealogy, which was drawn by the Vigilance Cell.
9. We are of the opinion that the matters need remand as proper
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
opportunity was not given. All the writ petitions deserves to be partly
allowed. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
I) All the Writ Petitions stand partly allowed.
II) The impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2019 passed
by respondent No.2 Committee, invalidating the Tribe Claim of
petitioners of 'Koli Mahadev', stands quashed and set aside. Their
matters are remanded before respondent No.2 Committee.
III) Respondent No.2 Committee to give an opportunity to the
petitioners to explain the contra entries and also to call the
photocopies of the registers in respect of which it is observed by the
Committee that there is insertion of caste under different ink and
handwriting. Even in that report, opportunity of being heard should
be given to the petitioners.
IV) Liberty is given to the petitioners to place on record any other
documents on which they want to rely, which may also be got
verified by the Committee.
V) Thereafter respondent No.2 Committee to proceed to decide
the matter as per the law.
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt
VI) In view of the fact that the matter pertains to students, we
expedite the inquiry. The inquiry should be completed within two
months from today and the decision be given by the Committee
within one month upon the conclusion of inquiry.
VII) Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
VIII) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
