Bombay High Court
Nilam Mohan Gavankar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2025:BHC-AS:13335-DB
wp-2978-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2978 OF 2023
NIKITA
Miss. Nilam Mohan Gavankar
KAILAS
DARADE
Digitally signed by
NIKITA KAILAS
DARADE
Date: 2025.03.21
19:22:46 +0530
Age:- 32 Years, Occu. Service,
R/o. House no. 272, Thakar wadi,
Ashiye, At post. Kankavli, Tal- Kankavli,
Dist- Sindhudurg, 416602 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Tribal Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Kokan Division, Thane
(Notice to be served upon Ld. Gvt Pleader, Writ Cell AS)
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg, ... Respondents
Mr. S. S. Panchpor a/w Ms. N. S. Mahadik for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Dipak T. Shigam, Law Officer CVC Thane.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 21st MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE. J.)
1. By the present petition, Petitioner assails the order dated
wp-2978-2023.odt
06.02.2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 Committee, by which the
Tribe claim of the Petitioner as belonging to "Thakar Scheduled Tribe"
has been invalidated (Impugned Order).
2. Factual Matrix:-
a) Petitioner was issued Caste Certificate dated 19.01.2004
certifying the Petitioner belongs to the "Thakar-44" Scheduled
Tribe.
b) On 24.07.2012, Petitioner was appointed as "Aarogya
Sevak" by the Respondent No.3, in the Scheduled Tribe Category.
c) On 21.09.2013 Tribe claim of the Petitioner was referred to
the Respondent No.2 Committee for verification.
d) Petitioner filed his affidavit, along with genealogy and other
documents in support of his claim of belonging to Thakar
Scheduled Tribe. Amongst other documents, Petitioner submitted
Caste Validity Certificates issued in favour of his cousin uncle Mr.
Pravin Mohan Pawar and cousin paternal aunt Mrs. Pratibha
Mohan Pawar. Reliance was placed on the Caste Validity
Certificate issued by the Respondent No.2 to Mr. Manoj
Gavankar, second cousin brother of the Petitioner; Caste Validity
Certificate issued to Mr. Suraj Sunil Gavankar, the cousin brother
of the Petitioner and the Caste Validity Certificate issued to Ms.
wp-2978-2023.odt
Sujata Sunil Gavankar the cousin sister of the Petitioner.
e) By the Impugned order Respondent No.2 has rejected the
Tribe claim of the Petitioner.
Submissions:
3. Mr. S. S. Panchpor, the learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner submits that the blood relations of the Petitioner from
paternal side are having Caste Validity Certificate as belonging to
"Thakar" Scheduled Tribe, as such the Petitioner was entitled for
grant of Scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate as belonging to
"Thakar". He submits that this Court in the case of Snehal
Dattaram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra1 has held that the
grounds taken by the Scrutiny Committee in rejecting the Tribe
claims on the ground of area restriction are set aside. He relies on
the Validity Certificates issued in favour of Manoj Gavankar, Suraj
Gavankar and Sujata Gavankar, the paternal side blood relatives of
the Petitioner and prays that the petition be allowed.
4. Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, learned AGP for the Respondent-
State has opposed the petition. By relying on the reasons recorded
in the Impugned order, she prays for dismissal of the petition.
wp-2978-2023.odt
5. With the assistance of the parties, we have perused the
record. From the rival contentions of the parties the question for
determination is whether the Petitioner on the basis of
documentary evidence / material on record has been able to
establish that they belong to "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe?
6. Petitioner relies on the Genealogy Tree which is a part of
Exhibit D, (page No.64). Respondent No.2 has not disputed the
said document.
Analysis:-
7. Petitioner in paragraph No.7 and 8 of the memo of petition
makes a reference to the Caste Validity Certificates issued by the
Respondent No.2 Committee to the following blood relatives from
paternal side of the Petitioner:-
a) Mr. Manoj Satyavijay Gavankar second cousin brother
of the Petitioner.
b) Mr. Suraj Sunil Gavankar cousin brother of the
Petitioner.
c) Ms. Sujata Sunil Gavankar cousin sister of the
wp-2978-2023.odt
Petitioner.
8. Section 8 of 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, casts the
burden of proving that the person belonging to a Caste, Tribe or
Class is upon such Claimant who claims to belong to a particular
Caste or Tribe.
9. Rule 2(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2005
defines "Relative" to mean a blood relative from the paternal side
of the applicant.
10. Petitioner has relied on the Caste Validity Certificates of his
blood relatives from paternal side. Mr. Panchpor submitted that the
Petitioner on oath has stated that the person referred to in the
genealogy tree who are holders of Caste Validity Certificates, are
their blood relative from paternal side. Thus, the Petitioner has
discharged the burden cast on them.
11. Ms. Pooja J. Deshpande Learned AGP does not dispute the
wp-2978-2023.odt
relationship of the Petitioner with their relatives referred to in para
No.7 herein above.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Panchpor submits that the Caste
Validity Certificates issued to the aforesaid blood relatives of the
Petitioner from paternal side, are intact as on date. Respondent
No.2 has not produced any document indicating any of the said
Caste Validity Certificates, being invalidated.
13. When the Respondent No.2 did not find Petitioner's relation
with the afore-referred Caste validity Certificate holders
disputable, the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva D/O Vinay
Nichale versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 and Others,2 ought to have been followed. Respondent No.2.
could not have ignored the Caste Validity Certificates granted to
the blood relatives of the Petitioner's paternal side relatives.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti versus State of
Maharashtra and Others,3 has considered the sanctity and
2 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053
3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
wp-2978-2023.odt
significance of the prescribed procedure under 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt
with the procedure that has to be followed by the Committee, the
importance and significance of the vigilance cell inquiry and
establishing the relationship by the claimant with those having a
Caste or a Tribe Validity Certificate. Case of Apoorva D/O Vinay
Nichale (supra) is referred to in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment
in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti (supra).
15. In the light of the above position of law emerging before us,
as well as upon considering the above referred documents, we are
of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the Respondent No.2 in
the impugned order in invalidating the claim of the Petitioner is
erroneous and unsustainable.
16. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Respondent
No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is
wp-2978-2023.odt
directed to issue "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate to
the Petitioner within a period of 30 days from today.
17. The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above said terms.
There shall be no orders as to cost.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
