Bombay High Court
Sahil S/O Narayan Dodke vs Vice-Chairman/ Member Secretary, S.T. ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-NAG:11206-DB
-- 1 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5082 OF 2024
Sahil S/o Narayan Dodke
Age 18 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Khandate Layout,
.. Petitioner
Near Khandate Sabhagruh Masala,
Tah.Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha
Versus
1. The Vice-Chairman / Member-
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, .. Respondent
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur
2. The Director, AIIMS New Delhi, Deleted as per
AIIMS Ansari Nagar, East Aurobindo Registrar Judicial
Marg, New Delhi (NCT) 110029 Court's dated
20/09/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Smita Dashputre, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. H.D.Marathe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 9
-- 2 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
(2) The challenge is raised to the order dated 16/08/2024
passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (for
short- 'the Committee'), whereby the claim of the petitioner that he
belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected.
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to
the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 10/10/2017, Sub-
Divisional Officer Hinganghat issued a caste certificate in his favour.
Petitioner, through Principal Navodaya Vidyalaya, Pimple Jagtap, Tahsil
Shirur, District Pune, submitted his caste certificate along with the
relevant documents to the Committee on 28/09/2022 for its
verification.
(4) Since the Committee was dissatisfied with the claim of
the petitioner, it forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell under Rule
12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 for a detailed enquiry.
Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell conducted a thorough enquiry and
submitted its report to the Committee on 24/06/2024, observing that
the petitioner has failed to produce cogent documents in support of his
claim to demonstrate that he belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
PAGE 2 OF 9
-- 3 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
As a sequel to the above, the petitioner was served with a
show-cause notice dated 02/07/2024 and called upon to explain the
adverse observations against his claim in the Vigilance Cell report.
(5) In the meantime, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition
No.3961/2024 before this Court, wherein this Court, vide order dated
23/07/2024, directed the respondent Committee to decide the matter
within a period of four weeks.
(6) After considering the Vigilance Cell report, the
petitioner's explanation, and the documents on record, the Committee,
vide impugned order, invalidated the petitioner's claim that he belongs
to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe; hence, the petitioner has preferred this
petition.
(7) Ms. Smita Dashputre, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently argued that the petitioner, in support of his claim, has
produced in all seven documents of his relatives/ancestors, out of
which one document is of the year 1940 pertains to his great-
grandfather, wherein his caste was recorded as "Mana", however, the
Committee has erred in discarding the said document without assigning
any reason. So also, the respondent Committee has not considered the
validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's father while
PAGE 3 OF 9
-- 4 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
considering the documents on record. The documents produced by the
petitioner on record pertain to his ancestors and denote that they
belong to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. However, without considering
those documents and the validity certificate, the Committee has erred
in holding that the petitioner has neither produced the documents prior
to the pre-Constitutional era nor proven the affinity test and, therefore,
rejected the petitioner's claim.
(8) Learned Counsel has drawn support from the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J.785 as well as the judgment of this Court in
the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee and others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, and
submitted that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments,
the petitioner is entitled to get the validity certificate. Hence, she urged
to allow the petition.
(9) Per contra, Mr. Marathe, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, resisted the petition on the ground that the
petitioner had failed to prove the genuineness of the document of the
year 1940 nor produce any document before 1950. Similarly, the
petitioner has failed to prove the affinity test that he belongs to the
PAGE 4 OF 9
-- 5 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
"Mana" Scheduled Tribe; therefore, the impugned order passed by the
respondent Committee is just, legal, and proper, and no interference is
required in it. Hence, he urges the dismissal of the petition.
(10) We have appreciated the rival submissions, perused the
impugned order and documents placed on record, and gone through
the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner.
(11) On perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the
Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on three
grounds that the petitioner has failed -
(i) to demonstrate that the document of the year 1940
pertains to his relative,
(ii) to produce documents before 1950, and
(iii) to prove affinity test.
(12) At the outset, it appears that the petitioner, in support of
his claim, has produced seven documents of his relatives/ancestors,
wherein their caste has been recorded as "Mana", out of which one
document dated 02/09/1940 pertains to his great-grandfather, namely,
Dasarya, wherein his caste has been recorded as "Mana". The
document is an extract of the birth register, which depicts one daughter
born to Dasarya. While giving the family tree, the petitioner and his
father have categorically mentioned the names of Dasarya as great-
PAGE 5 OF 9
-- 6 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
grandfather and Parvati as paternal grandmother. Neither the
Committee nor the Vigilance Cell disputed the said family tree but only
observed that the entry of 1940 is single, in which neither the father's
name nor surname of Dasarya is mentioned, and, therefore, the said
entry was discarded. It is worth noting that the said entry categorically
depicts that daughter Parvati was born to Dasarya on that day.
Consequently, we do not find substance in the reasons recorded by the
Committee for discarding the said document. As against, the said
document clearly denotes that the great-grandfather Dasarya is none
other than the great-grandfather of the petitioner.
(13) The second reason the Committee gave is that the
Vigilance Cell had gone to Faridpur village to verify the said entry.
There, they found the entry in the birth register only, but it was noticed
in worn condition. Therefore, the authority could not provide a certified
copy of the said document.
(14) It is pertinent to note that the Vigilance Cell neither
denied nor disputed the said entry but only observed that the said
document was in worn condition. It does not mean that the said
document was/is not in existence or that it is not helpful to the
petitioner in substantiating his claim. Therefore, we do not find
substance in the finding recorded by the Committee in that regard.
PAGE 6 OF 9
-- 7 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
(15) The other documents of the years 1976 and 1980 pertain
to the petitioner's father, paternal aunt, and grandfather of the
petitioner, wherein their caste has been recorded as "Mana". The
Committee has not disputed those documents.
(16) Thus, it appears that the petitioner, to substantiate his
claim, has produced a document of the year 1940 and other documents
wherein his relative's caste has been recorded as "Mana" Scheduled
Tribe. Moreover, as per the law laid down in the case of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Jamat (supra), the document of the pre-constitutional era has
the highest probative value. Likewise, the affinity test cannot be
termed as a litmus test. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
Committee appears to be contrary.
(17) In addition to the above, the petitioner has produced one
more crucial document, a validity certificate issued in favour of his
father. However, the respondent Committee ignored the same,
observing that while issuing said validity certificate, the Committee had
not conducted enquiry through Vigilance Cell about the document of
the year 1940 and, based on the said document, issued a validity
certificate.
PAGE 7 OF 9
-- 8 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
(18) As discussed above, we do not find substance in the
findings recorded by the Committee in that regard. On the contrary, in
our view, as per the dictum laid down in the case of Apoorva Nichle
(supra), the respondent Committee ought not to have rejected the
claim of the petitioner without assigning any cogent reason, but it was
incumbent on the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate in
favour of the petitioner.
(19) Besides in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless the Validity
certificate is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, etc., by the blood
relative of the petitioner, where the relationship pleaded by the
petitioner is established, the Committee is not required to undertake
the affinity test etc.
(20) Considering the above discussion, it is evident that the
petitioner, to substantiate his claim, has produced the documents of the
year 1940 and the validity certificate issued in favour of his father.
Moreover, the respondent Committee has not challenged the validity
certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner; therefore,
based on the above documents, the petitioner demonstrates that he
belongs to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe and, Consequently, he is
entitled to grant a validity certificate in his favour.
PAGE 8 OF 9
-- 9 -- WP 5082.2024 (J).odt
(21) In this background, in our view, the Committee has erred
in passing the impugned order, and therefore, it cannot be sustained in
the eyes of the law. That being so, we deem it appropriate to allow the
petition. As such, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
a) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
b) The impugned order dated 16/08/2024, passed
by the respondent Committee, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
c) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs
to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, and all the
benefits accruing thereof shall be extended to him
based on the declaration.
d) The respondent Committee is directed to issue a
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [ BHARATI DANGRE, J. ]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 9 OF 9
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/10/2024 18:23:09
