Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Krushna Thakur And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Dept. Of Tribal ... on 14 October, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:41253-DB
.. 1 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(SR. NO. 55) WRIT PETITION NO. 13994 OF 2024
1. Sanjay s/o Krushna Thakur, )
Age- 40 years, Occ. Service, )
R/o At & Post- Lakhmapur, )
Tq. Satana, Dist. Nashik. )
2. Vishal s/o Krushna Thakur, )
Age- 42 years, Occ. Service, )
R/o At & Post- Lakhmapur, )
Tq. Satana, Dist. Nashik. ) .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32 )
Through its Secretary. )
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate )
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division,)
Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik. )
Through its Member Secretary. )
3. The Commandant-in-Charge (IRB), )
State Reserve Police Force,
Group no.14, Chh. Sambhajinagar, )
Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar ) ...Respondents
AND
(SR. NO. 56) WRIT PETITION NO. 13995 OF 2024
Krushna D/o Keda Isai (Thakur) )
Age- 68 years, Occ. Pensioner, )
R/o At & Post- Lakhmapur, )
Tq. Satana, Dist. Nashik. ) .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Husen
.. 2 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
Department of Tribal Development, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. )
Through its Secretary. )
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate )
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division,)
Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik.
Through its Member Secretary. )
3. The Joint Director of Industries, )
Near ITI, Tryambak Road, Nashik, )
Tq. & Dist. Nashik. )
4. The General Manager, )
District Industries Centre, )
Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik. ) ...Respondents
-----
Mr.Sushant C. Yeramwar for Petitioners in both Petitions.
Mr. K.S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
in WP/13994/2024.
Ms. S.S. Benhde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in
WP/13995/2024.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally, by the consent of the Parties.
2. In first Petition, the Petitioners are siblings. In the
second Petition, the Petitioner Krushna is the biological father of
the siblings. Petitioner Krushna is the son of Keda, grand son of
Husen
.. 3 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
Bala and great grand son of Gangaram Kushaba. The other two
siblings namely Vishal and Sanjay (Petitioners in Writ Petition
No. 13994 of 2024), are the biological sons of Krushna.
3. These Petitioners have made multiple rounds to this
Court and the matters have been remitted to the Competent Tribe
Committee for considering their claim of belonging to Thakur
Scheduled Tribe.
4. We have considered the strenuous submissions of
the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned AGPs on
behalf of the Committee.
5. In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti V. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the Thakur
Scheduled Tribe category cases, has drawn certain conclusions in
paragraph Nos. 21, 22 & 23, which read as under:
"21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal
No. 2502 of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case),
the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has
noted that people having the surname "Thakur"
belong to both forward castes and various
backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be
right in saying that in every case, only on the basis
of the surname Thakur, it cannot be concluded by
the Scrutiny Committee that the applicant belongs
Husen
.. 4 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in the Entry 44
of the Maharashtra list. However, we must note that
in the case of a person having the surname Thakur,
there may be evidence in the form of entry of the
name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in
the land records, school or college records or any
official records concerning the applicant or his
ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons
having the surname Thakur may belong to a
forward caste as well, it is not necessary that in
every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the
case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the nature
of the documents produced before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the
documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim
regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered,
the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every case should
not mechanically refer the case to the Vigilance
Cell for conducting an enquiry including affinity
test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell can be
made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not
satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant.
22. We can also contemplate one more scenario
which is found in many cases. These are the cases
where the applicant relies upon caste validity
certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously,
such a validity certificate has to be issued either by
the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the
directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case or
constituted under the Rules framed under the 2000
Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee
must ascertain whether the certificate is genuine.
Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to
decide whether the applicant has established that
the person to whom the validity certificate relied
upon by him has been issued is his blood relative.
For that purpose, the applicant must establish his
precise and exact relationship with the
person to whom the validity certificate has been
granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made
by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity
Husen
.. 5 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
certificate has been granted to the blood relative of
the applicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee
after holding due enquiry and following due
procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee
has issued a validity certificate contemplated in
terms of the decision in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil, the examination will be whether the
enquiry contemplated by the said decision has
been held. If the certificate relied upon is issued
after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the
Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain whether
the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed
the procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST
Rules or the SC Rules, as the case may be. For this
verification, the Scrutiny Committee can exercise
powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) by
requisitioning the record of the concerned Caste
Scrutiny Committee, which has issued the validity
certificate to the blood relative of the applicant. If
the record has been destroyed, the Scrutiny
Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has
been held on the basis of the decision of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee by which caste validity has
been granted to the blood relative of the applicant.
If it is established that the validity certificate has
been granted without holding a proper inquiry or
without recording reasons, obviously, the caste
scrutiny committee cannot validate the caste
certificate only on the basis of such validity
certificate of the blood relative.
23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee
may be satisfied that the caste validity certificate
relied upon by the applicant has been issued after
making a lawful enquiry. But if the Scrutiny
Committee is of the view that the applicant has not
clearly established that the person to whom caste
validity certificate produced on record has been
granted is his blood relative, in terms of sub-rule
(2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee will have to refer the case for
conducting an enquiry through Vigilance Cell. In
such a case, the Vigilance Cell can be directed by
Husen
.. 6 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
the Scrutiny Committee to conduct an enquiry
limited to the relationship claimed by the applicant
with the person in whose favour the caste validity
certificate has been issued. If, on the basis of the
report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee is satisfied that the person in whose
favour caste validity certificate has been issued is a
blood relative of the applicant and lawful enquiry
has been conducted before issuing the validity
certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to
issue validity certificate even if the applicant does
not satisfy the affinity test. For example, if it is
established that the father or grandfather of the
applicant has been given a caste validity certificate
after holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with
law, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that
the grandfather or father of the applicant, as the
case may be, belongs to Scheduled Tribe but the
applicant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only
if the relationship as pleaded by the applicant is not
established, the other evidence produced by the
applicant and the result of the affinity test can be
taken into consideration by the Scrutiny
Committee."
6. It is, thus, settled that if there has been a Vigilance
Cell inquiry in some of the cases who can be said to be blood
relatives of the Petitioners from the paternal side and if validity
certificates are granted to them, it is not necessary that a
Vigilance Cell inquiry will have to be conducted in each case. If
no Vigilance Cell inquiry is conducted, it would be open to the
Committee to cause a Vigilance Cell inquiry and consider such
cases independently.
7. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Husen
.. 7 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur, [2010(6)
Mh.L.J.401 : 2010(6) AIR Bom.R.21], this Court has concluded
that if blood relatives from the paternal side are granted validity
certificates, concluding that they belong to a particular reserved
category, it would not be open to the Committee to arrive at a
different conclusion with relation to a candidate who is a blood
relative of the validity holder from the paternal side. For an
illustration, if the father and his biological brothers belong to a
particular backward category, the son or the daughter cannot be
held to be not belonging to that category.
8. In the present case, the genealogy tree has been
adverted to by the Competent Authority in the impugned order,
which led to invalidation of claims of these three Petitioners. We
find that, the same reflects around 5 generations and the oldest
known ancestor is Kushaba Thakur. For convenience, we are
adverting to the family tree branch of Rangnath Laxman Thakur
and his biological brothers, Nimba Laxman Thakur, Anna
Laxman Thakur and Namdev Laxman Thakur. Their father was
Laxman Rangu Thakur and grand father was Rangu Kushaba
Thakur. Rangu Kushaba is said to have a biological brother
Gangaram Kushaba Thakur. Yuvraj Bhausaheb is the grand-son
Husen
.. 8 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
of Namdev Laxman Thakur, who is one amongst four siblings.
Nimba Laxman Thakur was childless.
9. Yuvraj Bhausaheb is granted a validity certificate by
the Judgment of this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai (as His Lordship
then was) and Smt. Anuja Prabhudesai, J.J.], vide Order dated
04/10/2017, delivered in Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2013 Yuvraj
S/o. Bhausaheb Rajwade V. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. For
ready reference, we are reproducing paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6
of the said Judgment, here under:
"3. The Petitioner claims to be Thakur
Scheduled Tribe. Claim of the Petitioner was
rejected on the ground that though the pre
Constitutional document shows the Petitioner's
ancestral caste to be Thakur, however it does not
mean Schedule Tribe. Another ground is that the
Petitioner has failed to Affinity Test.
4. In so far as the first ground is concerned,
there could be no reason as to why the pre
Constitution document should mention a
Scheduled Tribe. In that way the objection of the
old and inadequate ground in our view is not
sustainable. We notice that the Petitioner has
placed on record document pertaining to his grand
father viz. Namdeo Laxmanrao Thakur, which is
an extract of administrtion register taken on
1.8.1936 showing his caste as Thakur. It may be
noted that the Vigilance Cell has found it to be
genuine.
5. It is further to be noted that the Petitioner is
grandson of one Namdeo Thakur. Namdeo Thakur
Husen
.. 9 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
had seven sons. One of them was Dharmaraj. The
claim of Dharmaraj as well as his son has been
held to be valid by the Scrutiny Committee. The
claim of the another grandson of Namdev Thakur
i.e. Nilesh Rajwade (Thakur) had also found to be
valid by the Scrutiny Committee. It can be thus,
seen that father and brother of the Petitioner and
two of his first cousins have been held to be
belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. Rule is
therefore, made absolute in following terms :
6. It is held and declared that the Petitioner is
belonging to Thakur Scheduled Caste. The
Respondent Scrutiny Committee to issue validity
certificate in favour of the Petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today."
10. Now, the brother of Yuvaraj, namely Dhananjay
Bhausaheb has been granted a validity certificate. The biological
brothers of Bhausaheb are Prabhakar, Dhamaraj, Anil, Sunil,
Sanjay & Rajendra. Chetan s/o Prabhakar, Anklesh s/o Anil,
Nilesh s/o Sunil, Ganesh and Rahul s/o Sanjay, have been
granted validity certificates. Sulabha d/o Rajendra Bhaurao,
Shaila d/o Vishwanath Annaji, have also been granted validity
certificates. Kishor s/o Vishwanath and his daughter Juhi, have
also been granted validity certificates.
11. There are around 19 validity holders from the
paternal side of the present Petitioners. In these circumstances,
Husen
.. 10 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
the law laid down in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) would
be squarely applicable.
12. The learned AGPs have opposed these Petitions and
contended that in some of the cases, notices for reopening of the
cases have been issued. Those cases would be processed in
accordance with the procedure applicable.
13. In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No.5611/2018 decided on
27.07.2018 (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363), this Court has
concluded in paragraph Nos.2 to 4 & 8, which read as under:
"2 On the earlier occasion, we found that
though the petitioner produced credible evidence
in the form of certificates of validity issued to her
real uncle Govind Sambhaji Isankar and which
concededly has been issued way back on 5 th
December 2005 and another certificate of validity
dated 5th September 2006 to his cousin uncle
Ramdas Sambhaji Isankar, the Committee finds
that the certificate of validity issued to the real
uncle Govind, is not free from suspicion. It is held
by the Committee in the impugned order that a
notice to show cause has been issued to said
Govind on 14th September 2017, calling upon him
to show cause as to why this certificate of validity
should not be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated
by fraud or suppression of material facts by the
said Govind.
3 On such a finding being rendered by the
Committee, we called upon the learned AGP on
the earlier two occasions to produce the record.
Husen
.. 11 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
We also indicated to the learned AGP as to how
the certificate of validity is denied to the petitioner
though she has established her relationship with
the said Govind and only on the ground that a
show cause notice has been issued, but no
proceedings in furtherance thereof came to be
initiated till date. The learned AGP sought time to
file an affidavit. Now, the Joint Commissioner,
Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken on
record. The said affidavit admits that the
certificate of validity has been issued to her real
uncle and cousin uncle of the petitioner. The
affidavit admits that the petitioner relies heavily
on these two documents, but clarifies that there is
a suppression detected from the original record of
the certificate holder and that is how a show cause
notice has been issued to Govind. The show cause
notice could not be taken to its logical end on
account of the huge pendency of cases before this
Committee. In all, 7,000 matters were pending on
the date when this Joint Commissioner took
charge and he has reduced the pendency by 2500
cases being decided. In the circumstances, he says
that appropriate orders and directions be issued by
this Court.
4 We are not impressed by this explanation
and the justification not to proceed against a
person who has perpetrated a fraud on the public.
If it is a serious allegation and which is termed as
fraud, then, it should have been taken to its logical
end. Mere issuance of a show cause notice in the
present case would not suffice for there are two
certificates of validity relied upon. The only
reason assigned in the impugned order to discard
them, cannot be sustained. The justification in the
above affidavit is also not enough to straightaway
discard the certificates of validity issued in the
family. It is conceded that other reasons assigned
in the impugned order cannot be supported in law.
8. This order does not prevent the Committee
from proceeding against Govind in accordance
Husen
.. 12 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
with law and needless to further clarify that in the
event Govind's claim is invalidated, all the
consequences shall be taken by the petitioner as
well."
14. In view of the above, the issue raised by the learned
AGPs is that, because show cause notices have been issued in
some of the cases, no further validities should be granted by this
Court. We cannot ignore the fact that due to pendency of cases
due to a heavy work load before the Committees, even students
cases, are not decided for months together. In hundreds of the
matters, this Court has granted time-lines and because the
Committees are unable to complete the cases within the time-
lines and sometimes purely on the ground of liberal
adjournments granted by the Committees, many cases are
pending.
15. As such, when there are 19 validity holders before
us from the paternal side, these Petitions cannot be kept pending
only because the Committee has issued show cause notices to
some of the candidates. This issue has been dealt with in Shweta
Balaji Isankar (supra).
16. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly
allowed. The impugned orders invalidating their claims are
Husen
.. 13 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
quashed and set aside, with the following directions:
(a) Validity certificates of Thakur Scheduled Tribe
category would be issued to these Petitioners within 30
days.
(b) If any of the validity holders, on whom the
Petitioners before us have relied upon for claiming
validity, suffer invalidation in the reopened cases, the
Committee would be at liberty to reopen these
Petitioners' cases as well, and the consequences suffered
by those candidates whose claims are invalidated (after
reopening of the cases), would befall on these Petitioners
as well.
17. Considering that Krushna had superannuated in
2015 and still has not received his pensionary benefits, the
concerned authority shall forward the proposal of Krushna for
the pensionary benefits, within 30 days. Needless to state that the
Competent Authority should ensure that the pension papers
(forwarded by Respondent No. 4), are cleared within 60 days and
arrears of pension would be paid to the Petitioner (Krushna)
within 90 days from today.
Husen
.. 14 .. 55 & 56 WP-13994-2024.odt
18. We are not granting interest on the said amount
keeping in view that Krushna's claim was invalidated.
19. Rule made partly absolute in the above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Husen
