Bombay High Court
Priya D/O Uddhav Garmale vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:1496-DB
1 wp4037.2014..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4037 OF 2014
Priya d/o Uddhav Garmale
Aged about 20 yrs, Occ Student,
R/o. Mohadi, Tah. Sindewahi,
Dist. Chandrapur ...... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Chairman,
2. The Director,
Maharashtra State Education,
Research and Training Council, Pune,
3. The Principal Yashodabai Khare
D.Ed. College, Jhansi Rani Chowk,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate with Ms. Himani Kavi, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Pendke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
Mr. Ketan Bhoskar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 14.02.2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocate
for the parties.
2 wp4037.2014..odt
2. The challenge is to the order dated 07.03.2014, passed
by respondent No.1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli (for short-"the Committee"), thereby
invalidating the petitioner's claim that she belongs to the ' Mana'
Scheduled Tribe.
3. In short, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner claims that she belongs to the 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe, and accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bramhapuri, has issued a caste certificate in her favour. The
petitioner, through Sarvodaya Girls High School and Junior College,
Siddheshwari, has submitted the caste certificate to the Committee
for verification. The Committee, being dissatisfied with the
documents placed on record, forwarded the proposal to the
Vigilance Cell for detailed enquiry. The Vigilance Cell has
thoroughly conducted the enquiry and submitted its report to the
Committee, whereupon the Committee has called upon the
petitioner to explain adverse observations in the report of the
Vigilance Cell. The petitioner appeared and explained the adverse
observations, thereby denying the same.
3 wp4037.2014..odt
After considering the report, the explanation, and other
relevant documents on record, the Committee invalidated the
petitioner's claim of belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe; hence,
this petition.
4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties,
gone through the original case record, which was immediately
returned, and gone through the citations relied upon by the
petitioner.
It is to be noted that vide order dated 15.06.2015, this
Court issued "Rule" which was made returnable early.
5. Ms. Himani Kavi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently contended that the petitioner, in support of her claim,
has produced nine documents on record, out of which two are from
the pre-constitutional era of the year 1921-22 and 1948-49
pertaining to her grandfather and great-grandfather wherein their
tribe has been recorded as 'Mana' and other documents of the year
1959 to 2009 also denote her relatives belong to 'Mana' Scheduled
Tribe. She further contended that the Committee had issued a
validity certificate to her two real brothers, Pranay and Sarang, and
4 wp4037.2014..odt
two more cousins; therefore, as per the law laid down in the case of
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others (2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 ("Apoorva Nichle") , the
petitioner is entitled to Validity Certificate. However, the Committee
has not considered the same and erred in holding that though the
documents of 1921-22 depict the caste of her great-grandfather was
recorded as 'Mana'. The 7/12 extract in respect of the applicant's
father does not bear endorsement as is necessary under Section 36
and 36A of the Maharashtra Revenue Code to the effect that the
landholder is a Scheduled Tribe, and transfer of land is prohibited as
is seen in the case of Scheduled Tribe landholders and therefore, has
rejected the application of the petitioner. She further argued that
such a finding is contrary to the settled position of law and the
documents on record and cannot be sustained; hence, she urged for
allowing the petition. Reliance is also placed on the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti vs State of Maharashtra and others , AIR 2023 SC
1657.
6. As against the above, learned AGP Mr. Pendke resisted
the claim on the ground that the findings recorded by the
Committee that the 7/12 extract in respect of the applicant's father
5 wp4037.2014..odt
does not bear endorsement as is necessary under Section 36 and
36A of the Maharashtra Revenue Code to the effect that the
landholder is a Scheduled Tribe and transfer of land is prohibited as
is seen in the case of Scheduled Tribe landholders, therefore,
submitted that said finding is just and proper which requires no
interference at the hands of this Court.
7. At the outset, it appears that the petitioner, in support of
her claim, has produced nine documents on record; also, the
Vigilance Cell has discovered another six documents. In all those
documents, it has been recorded that the petitioner's ancestors
belong to 'Mana'. Notably, the documents of 1921-22, 1948-49,
1953 and 1959 pertain to the petitioner's father, grandfather, and
uncle. Neither the Vigilance Cell nor the Committee has disputed
said documents. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve since the
documents of 1921-22 and 1948-49 being pre-constitutional
documents have higher probative value. In such an eventuality, as
per the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat (supra), "the pre-constitutional
documents have a higher probative value. Likewise, the affinity test
cannot be termed as a litmus test while deciding caste claim."
6 wp4037.2014..odt
Therefore, the question of refusing Validity based on the finding that
the sale transaction does not reflect the endorsement in view of
Sections 36 and 36A of the MLR Code, to the effect that the
landholder is a Scheduled Tribe category, is not sustainable in the
eyes of the law.
8. In addition to the above, the Committee has also ignored
the four validity certificates issued in favour of the blood relatives of
the petitioner, which included two real brothers of the petitioner.
The committee has discarded the validity certificates of her cousin,
brother, and sister on the grounds that the same were issued
without conducting the vigilance enquiry and without going into the
affinity test. However, the said finding appears contrary to the
mandate laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat and Apoorva
Nichle (supra). In fact, it is evident that in light of the law laid
down in Apoorva Nichle, the Committee ought not to have refused
the validity, but the Committee is required to issue validity in her
favour unless it finds that the validity certificates of said relatives
have been obtained by fraud or were issued without jurisdiction.
7 wp4037.2014..odt
9. To sum up the above discussion, it is evident that the
petitioner, to substantiate her claim, has produced pre-constitutional
era documents and validity certificates issued in favour of her real
brothers, cousin brother and sister. Thus, the case is covered by the
law laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat and Apoorva
Nichle (supra); therefore, in our view, based on those documents
and the law laid down in the above decisions, the petitioner is
entitled to Validity Certificate, and the findings recorded by the
Committee is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and requires to
be quashed and set aside.
In the wake of the above discussion, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2014, passed by
respondent No.1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
declared that the petitioner belongs to the ' Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
The Committee shall issue a Validity Certificate to the petitioner
within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/02/2025 14:26:12
