Bombay High Court
Farooqui Urooj Fatema Anees Ul Haq vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:984-DB
{1}
WP 6902 OF 2019 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6902 OF 2019
Farooqui Urooj Fatema Anees Ul Haq
Age : 24 Years, Occu. Education
R/o. House No. 6-2-97,
Mohalla Sayyadan, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Schedule Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
3. Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Nashik
Through its Registrar
4. Government Medical College
Latur, through its Dean.
Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4
Mr. S. B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11th JANUARY, 2024.
Judgment (Per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):
Petitioner approaches this court under Article 226 of The
{2}
WP 6902 OF 2019 R.odt
Constitution of India thereby assailing the order dated 09/01/2019
passed by Respondent No.2 - Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee thereby invalidating the caste claim of petitioner to "Tadvi
Schedule Tribe"
2. Mr. S. R. Barlinge, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner
would submit that the paternal cousin of the petitioner, namely Afrin
Khanam has been accorded caste validity for Tadvi Schedule Tribe.
Similarly, the petitioner has produced several document pertaining to the
paternal relations indicating entry of caste as Tadvi. However the relying
upon the entries of religion i.e. Muslim in the documents of some of the
paternal relations, invalidated claim of the petitioner. Mr. Barlinge
further invited our attention to the lease deed of 1350 Fasli wherein the
surname of Banamiya S/o. Wahad is mentioned as Tadvi, which
according to him indicates the caste. He submits that cast is referred at
the place of surname as per the prevailing practice during the Nizam
regime. According to him the committee has adopted hyper technical
approach and invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
3. Mr. N. S. Tekale, learned AGP strongly opposes the petition
and justifies the impugned order passed by the committee.
4. We have perused the original record from the file of the
scrutiny committee it appears that petitioner is mainly relying upon
validity of caste claim of Afrin Khanam who appears to be the cousin
sister of the petitioner. The genealogy is placed on record along with the
affidavit given by Afrin. There is no dispute that Afrin is granted validity
by the committee. The committee considered aforesaid documents in its
{3}
WP 6902 OF 2019 R.odt
order and observed that the father of Afrin Khanam namely Mehmood
Khan Ismail Khan recorded statement before the vigilance officer that he
do not have any brother or sister and he was the only child. Mr. Barlinge
learned counsel submits that the validity holder Afrin Khanam has given
affidavit accepting her relationship with the petitioner. We have perused
the said affidavit of Afrin Khanam. The original file in respect of Afrin
Khanam is also produced before us. Apparently, the signature in the
supporting affidavit tendered by Afrin Khanam in the present case differs
from her original signature appearing in her own caste claim. The
observations of the committee that there is no acceptable evidence to
conclude relationship of petitioner with Afrin Khanam appears to be
correct. The committee has further observed that documents regarding
school entry of the petitioner i.e. father in the year 1963 & 1971 simply
records the caste as Muslim / Musalman. Mr. Barlinge would contend
that entry of Muslim in the caste column cannot be construed as contra
evidence since it depicts legal. He relies upon observations this court in
Writ Petition No. 13356 of 2017 in case of Sabahat Sartaj Khan, through
her father V/s The State of Maharashtra dated 03.05.2018. Although
there cannot be any dispute regarding salutary observation of this court,
it is for the petitioner to establish his claim based on positive evidence.
So far as the document of lease deed is concerned, the original is not
produced. Even otherwise the said document do not refer to caste at all
and does not support the caste claim of the petitioner.
5. In that view of the matter we do not find any convincing
evidence on record to support the caste claim of the petitioner. Further
record depicts father of petitioner while admitting himself at Pratibha
Niketan Mahavidyalaya, Nanded on 26.06.1973 claimed himself from
{4}
WP 6902 OF 2019 R.odt
'Economically Backward Class (EBC)' which is inconsistent with the claim
of the petitioner to be belonging to the Tadvi schedule tribe.
6. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the
order of the Committee in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
Signed by: G R TOKE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/01/2024 12:07:32
