Bombay High Court
Lalita Suresh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8242-DB
6374.19wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6374 OF 2019
Smt. Lalita d/o Suresh Thakur,
Age: 59 years, Occu: Retired as Supervisor,
R/o Plot No.14, Sant Dnyaneshwar Colony,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
Through its Secretary
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division,
Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary
3. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. Woman and Child Development Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon ....RESPONDENTS
....
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.2908 OF 2019
Smt. Lalita d/o Suresh Thakur,
Age: 59 years, Occu: Retired as Supervisor,
R/o Plot No.14, Sant Dnyaneshwar Colony,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
6374.19wp etc
(2)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
Through its Secretary
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary
3. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
4. Woman and Child Development Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr D. S. Patil and Mr Kapil J.
Thakur, Advocates for petitioner
Mr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr Nitin S. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 6th March, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
WRIT PETITION NO. 6374 OF 2019
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
the parties for final hearing.
6374.19wp etc
3. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated
23/04/2019, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny committee
invalidating the petitioner's claim for 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe in a
proceeding under Section 7 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). By the impugned order,
the committee has concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish
her claim on the basis of the documentary evidence as well as on
account of failure to prove her affinity with 'Thakur' scheduled tribe.
4. The committee has considered the documentary evidence
relied upon by the petitioner and while dealing with the validity
certificate relied upon by the petitioner, the committee has observed
that the validity certificates were issued to the petitioner's real brother
Bharat Suresh Thakur and her real niece Suvarna Jagannath Thakur,
without proper affinity test and therefore, the validity certificates could
not be relied upon to conclusively decide the petitioner's tribe claim.
5. Advocate Mahesh Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently submits that the scrutiny committee has adopted
6374.19wp etc
erroneous approach while considering the documentary evidence in
favour of the petitioner. He submits that the validity certificates of
petitioner's real brother Jagannath Suresh Thakur and real niece
Suvarna Jagannath Thakur were wrongly discarded. He further
submits that the school record of the petitioner's father dated
07/06/1930 was a document of pre-independence era having high
probative value, which is although considered in the vigilance cell
enquiry report, but the committee has erroneously discarded this
document. He also submits that the validity of petitioner's niece
Suvarna Jagannath Thakur granted on 16/10/2003 ought to have been
relied upon and made the basis to decide the petitioner's caste claim.
He then submits that Suvarna was granted validity after the
Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 Act came into force and it was in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. He further submits that
validity of petitioner's real brothers Bharat Suresh Thakur and
Jagannath Suresh Thakur were sufficient to validate petitioner's claim.
It is submitted that in view of these validities, the committee has
unnecessarily referred to the issue of affinity since it is established
position of law that affinity is not a litmus test to decide the caste
claim.
6374.19wp etc
6. Per contra, Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P. for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 justifies the impugned order. He points out
that there are invalidities in the family of petitioner's husband
including petitioner's father-in-law and brother-in-law and he refers to
the observations of the committee about invalidation of claim of Dattu
Namdev Thakur.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
papers.
8. It has to be seen that there are validities in the family of
the petitioner including validity of petitioner's real brother Jagannath
and Bharat. Although these validities are granted prior to the
Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, the same are in force and the
petitioner is entitled to derive its benefits. The petitioner's reliance on
validity of Suvarna Jagannath Thakur, who is her niece is justified as
validity of Suvarna was granted after 2001 Act and by following
proper procedure.
9. In view of the law laid down in the Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657] and
6374.19wp etc
Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401] considering
the validities of petitioner's real brothers and real niece, the petitioner
is also entitled for validation of her tribe claim. Hence, we pass the
following order :-
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 23/04/2019, 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.
(e) Rule is made absolute.
(f) No order as to costs.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2908 OF 2019
10. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 26/02/2019
seeking direction to respondent No.2/scrutiny committee to decide her
caste claim within stipulated period and for directions to respondent
6374.19wp etc
Nos.3 and 4 (employer) to release her pension and pensionary benefits
without insisting for submission of caste validity certificate.
11. Since subject matter of both the petitions was about tribe
claim of the petitioners, they are heard together.
12. In view of the decision in Writ Petition 6374/2019, by
which the order of invalidation passed by the scrutiny committee is
quashed and set aside, directing the committee to issue validity
certificate to the petitioner, the instant petition is disposed of with
directions to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take decision about entitlement
of the petitioner to pension and other retiral benefits, on production of
validity certificate. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
