Bombay High Court
Bhalchandra S/O. Nathu Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 January, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:995-DB
5321.09wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5321 OF 2009
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9690 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5321 OF 2009
Bhalchandra s/o Nathu Thakur,
Age: 59 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o. Plot No.2/1, Mayur Housing Society,
Nimkhedi Shivar, Dhule Road, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Commissioner,
Pune
2. Schedule Tribes Certificate
Security Committee,
Nandurbar, Through its
Member Secretary
3. The Executive Magistrate,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule
4. The Account General-1,
Maharashtra State,
Near Church Gate Railway Station,
Madam Kama Road, Mumbai
5. The Director General of Police
Maharashtra State, State Police
Head Quarter, Mumbai ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner
Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for respondents/State
5321.09wp
(2)
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 6th January, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
the parties for final hearing.
3. The petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and
order dated 06/05/2009, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny
committee invalidating the petitioner's claim for 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe and instead issuing direction to initiate action against the
petitioner under Section 10(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
and 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. The committee has invalidated the petitioner's claim
observing that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim on the
basis of the documents as well as on account of failure in affinity test.
5321.09wp
The committee has, although considered the validity certificates in
favour of sons of the petitioner, has opined that the petitioner's claim
cannot be conclusively decided on the basis of those validity
certificates since each and every case needs to be considered
independently and in view of the legal position existing on the date of
passing of the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner needs to be
considered independently. The committee has thus refused to rely on
the validity certificates of the children of the petitioner. As regards the
documents of pre-independence era, relied upon by the petitioner, the
committee has discarded the documents by observing that, since the
forefathers of the petitioner were residing in a place at Taluka
Sindkheda, District Dhule, which is not in the scheduled area for the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe community, the documents cannot be of any
assistance in proving the petitioner's tribe claim. Apart from giving its
finding on the documents, the committee independently observed that
the petitioner has failed in affinity test and with these observations, the
petitioner's claim is invalidated.
5. Assailing the order of the committee, Advocate S. R.
Barlinge, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to
the certificate of validity granted in favour of the petitioner's son
5321.09wp
Mahesh Bhalchandra Thakur, dated 14/10/1999 and certificate of
validity dated 20/04/2004 in favour of his another son Mukesh
Bhalchandra Thakur. Apart from the reliance on validity certificates of
the children of the petitioner, it is argued that, in support of the
petitioner's tribe claim, pre-independence era documents in the nature
of School Leaving Certificates of the year 1935, 1938 and 1941, so
also the extracts of birth and death registers of the year 1924, 1930 and
1939 were relied upon, which mentioned the caste of the forefathers of
the petitioner as 'Thakur'. By referring to these documents, it is
submitted that, in view of these documents of pre-independence era,
which have high probative value and in absence of any contra entry in
any other document, the petitioner's claim ought to have been
validated on the strength of the documentary evidence.
6. Per contra, Advocate V. M. Kagne, the learned A.G.P. for
respondent Nos.1 to 5 has opposed the petition and justified the
impugned order by contending that the validity certificates in favour of
the children of the petitioner, cannot be made the sole basis. It is
submitted that, although the validity to the sons of the petitioner was
granted on the basis of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition
Nos.2746/1998 and 5454/1998, the legal position on the basis of which
5321.09wp
these writ petitions were decided was not subsequently maintained. It
is argued that the validity certificates of sons of the petitioner cannot
be sole basis to decide petitioner's claim. It is submitted that the other
documents relied upon by the petitioner are rightly discarded in view
of the residence of the petitioner's forefathers being not from the
scheduled area.
7. We have heard the parties, considered the rival
contentions and perused the papers.
8. It is to be noted that there is no challenge to the
certificates of validity in favour of the petitioner's son Mahesh and
Mukesh. In view of the fact that the validities of the children of the
petitioner are granted by the competent authority and the same are not
being questioned, the petitioner's claim will have to be decided by
giving due weightage to these validity certificates. The reasoning of
the committee while discarding these validity certificates is not at all
appealing and the same demonstrates erroneous approach on the part
of the caste scrutiny committee. Although the judgment in the matter
of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others, [(1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241], lays
down that each and every case needs to be considered in the
5321.09wp
backdrop of its facts, it will be an anomalous situation to hold that the
children and father belong to different castes. Apart from these
validity certificates, the other documentary evidence relied upon by the
petitioner being of pre-independence era, as referred above, cannot be
discarded only for the reason of area restriction. It view of undisputed
position about removal of area restriction, the reasons stated by the
scrutiny committee for discarding the pre-independence documents are
not sustainable.
9. In view of the position of law as laid down in the matter
of Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2018
(5) ALL MR 975] and Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya
Samrakshana Samithi and another Vs. State of Kerala and
another, [1994 (1) SCC 359], the rejection of caste claim by
discarding documents only on account of residence of the candidate
not from scheduled area, cannot be sustained.
10. Further, in view of the validity certificates in favour of the
children of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to take benefit of the
law laid down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR
2023 Supreme Court 1657] and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs.
5321.09wp
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others;
[2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401].
11. In view of the entire conspectus of the matter, the
petitioner is entitled for grant of validity certificate and the petition
needs to be allowed. Hence, the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 06/05/2009, passed by
respondent No.2/caste scrutiny committee is quashed and set
aside.
(c) Respondent No.2/committee is directed to immediately
issue the tribe validity certificate of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe to
the petitioner in the prescribed format.
(d) Pending civil application also stands disposed of.
(e) Rule is made absolute.
(f) No order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
