Bombay High Court
Amol Arun Thakur vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 5 February, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:4861-DB
3608.07wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3608 OF 2007
Amol s/o Arun Thakur,
Age:___ years, Occu: Student,
R/o Deepnagar, New E Type 61/2,
Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2) The Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Madhur A. Golegaonkar, Advocate h/f Mr Anil S. Golegaonkar,
Advocate for petitioner
Ms S. S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondents
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 5th February, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Heard advocate Mr Madhur Golegaonkar, holding for
advocate Mr A. S. Golegaonkar for the petitioner and advocate Ms S.
S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondents.
3608.07wp
2. This writ petition was admitted by order dated 29/03/2010
with interim relief in favour of the petitioner. The matter is taken up
for final hearing.
3. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated
06/10/2006, passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, invalidating his claim for 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
4. Respondent No.2/scrutiny committee has observed that
the petitioner failed to establish his claim on account of documentary
evidence, as well as failed to prove affinity with 'Thakur' scheduled
tribe. While dealing with the validity certificate relied upon by him,
the committee has observed that, in view of the position of law
prevailing at the relevant time, the petitioner could not be given benefit
of validity certificate.
5. Advocate Mr Madhur Golegaonkar for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the impugned order is absolutely
3608.07wp
unsustainable in view of the settled position of law. He submitted that
the petitioner had filed 48 documents in support of his caste claim
which included revenue records, birth/death register entries, extracts of
school records of his paternal side relatives. The main thrust of the
arguments is the petitioner's reliance upon validity certificate of his
father Arun Ananda Thakur. It is submitted that, the committee has
referred to this validity certificate by observing that although the
validity was granted by relying upon the judgment in the matter of
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi and
another Vs. State of Kerala and another, [1994 (1) SCC 359],
however, in view of the position of law in the matter of Sunil
Muralidhar Thakur and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (Writ Petition No.3153/1996), the validity could not be relied
upon. He strenuously submitted that the approach of the committee is
perverse in discarding the validity of petitioner's father, which is in
force and has attained finality. He also submitted that the conclusions
of the committee about failure in affinity test and the petitioner's
residence being not from the scheduled area, are also unsustainable.
6. Per contra, advocate Ms Joshi, learned A.G.P. for
respondents opposes the petition and justifies the impugned order. She
submits that the validity of the petitioner's father was a conditional
3608.07wp
validity and it was made subject to decision in the matter of Baburao
s/o Rajaram Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2002 (4)
Mh.L.J. 310] in Writ Petition No.4123/1999, which was pending
before the division bench at that time, and therefore, the petitioner
cannot completely rely on such conditional validity. She also submits
that, in view of the position of law as laid down in Kumari Madhuri
Patil and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others, [(1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241], each case needs to be
decided on its own merits, and therefore, the petitioner's claim was
rightly considered independently.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioner produces a copy of the vigilance cell enquiry report
dated 28/11/2000 in the matter of his father, alongwith a copy of the
order dated 08/05/2002 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Nashik
granting validity to his father.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers. It has to be noted that the documents submitted by the
petitioner including the pre-presidential order era consistently show
the caste as 'Thakur'. There is no document with contrary entry.
Apart from the documents submitted by the petitioner, the validity
3608.07wp
certificate in favour of his father needs to be given due consideration.
It is undisputed position that claim of the petitioner's father was
considered by following the due procedure, in that proper vigilance
cell enquiry was conducted which becomes clear from vigilance cell
enquiry report dated 28/11/2000. Based on this report, the committee
has passed a reasoned order dated 08/05/2002 which mentions that the
validity was subject to the decision in the matter of Baburao Rajaram
Shinde (supra), which was pending before the division bench at that
time. It has to be noted that the writ petition of Baburao Rajaram
Shinde (supra) was finally decided by the judgment dated 03/06/2002,
thereby validating the claim of Baburao. It is pointed out that this
judgment was not interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such,
validity of petitioner's father Arun Ananda Thakur can no more be
considered to be a conditional validity.
9. In view of the fact that the claim of petitioner's father was
decided by following due procedure after vigilance cell enquiry,
reliance can be placed upon this validity in view of the law laid down
in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court
1657]. Further, in view of the validity in favour of the petitioner's
3608.07wp
father, it will be anomalous situation if the petitioner's claim is
invalidated. We are, therefore, of the view that on the basis of validity
of his father, the petitioner is also entitled to have validity in his
favour.
10. As regards affinity test, the position of law is no more
res-integra that affinity test is not a litmus test and failure to establish
ethnic linkage, as observed by the respondent/committee, cannot be
therefore considered as a factor to deny validity.
11. On the basis of settled position of law in the matter of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra)
and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401], in
view of validity in favour of petitioner's father, the instant writ petition
needs to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
(a) The impugned order dated 06/10/2006, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee is quashed and set aside.
(b) Respondent No.2/committee is directed to issue validity
certificate in favour of the petitioner in the prescribed proforma.
3608.07wp
12. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
