Bombay High Court
Bhavesh S/O Gajendrakumar Rannaware, ... vs The Vice Chairman/ Member Secretary, ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4923-DB
1 wp2189.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2189 OF 2024
Bhavesh s/o Gajendrakumar Rannaware,
Aged about 17 years, Occ. - Student,
through Natural Guardian Father
Shri Gajendrakumar s/o Vitthalrao
Rannaware, aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Plot No.34, Nasheman Co-operative
Housing Society, Koradi Road, Bokhara,
Nagpur. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas
Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENT
________________________________________________________________
Mr. Preeti D. Rane, Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 08-05 -2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard. RULE. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The petition challenges the order dated 12-12-2023 passed by the
respondent-Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
(for short, "the Committee"), which rejected the petitioner's Tribe Claim
that he belongs to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
2 wp2189.24.odt
3. It is contended that the petitioner belongs to the " Mana" Scheduled
Tribe. Accordingly, the Competent Authority had issued a Caste Certificate
in his favour. To pursue his education in a Medical Course, the petitioner
had submitted his Caste Certificate and documents to the St. Paul Science
and Commerce Junior College, Nagpur. The principal of the said College
had forwarded his Caste Certificate along with documents to the
Committee for verification.
4. Since the Committee was dissatisfied with the documents, it
forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for a thorough enquiry into the
same. The Vigilance Cell had conducted the enquiry and submitted its
report on 08-09-2023, observing that some adverse entries were found
against the claim of the petitioner. The Committee issued a show cause
notice and called upon the petitioner to explain those adverse entries. The
petitioner, along with his father, appeared before the Committee and
submitted their explanation on the show cause notice. After affording an
opportunity of hearing, considering the Vigilance Cell report and the
documents on record, the Committee vide impugned order rejected the
Tribe Claim of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
5. Ms. Preeti Rane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently
contended that the petitioner, in support of his claim, had submitted
twenty-two documents; out of them two Validity Certificates granted in
favour of his father Gajendra and uncle Vijendra, one pre-constitutional
3 wp2189.24.odt
document of 1946 and one document of 1979 pertaining to his
grandfather wherein his caste was recorded as " Mana". Therefore, she
submitted that based on the said two Validity Certificates and the oldest
documents, the petitioner has demonstrated that he belongs to " Mana"
Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, she urges that the petition be allowed.
To substantiate her claim, she has relied on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785 and
Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1,
and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 and submitted that in view of the mandate
laid down in the said decisions, the petitioner is entitled to get the Validity
Certificate.
6. On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Patil, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, vehemently resisted the application on the ground that the
Validity Certificates granted to the father and uncle of the petitioner were
granted without conducting the vigilance cell enquiry and, therefore, the
Committee has not considered the documents which are inconsistent with
the claim of the petitioner and, thus, those Validity Certificates are not
helpful while considering the claim of the petitioner. Similarly, during the
period of enquiry, the Vigilance Cell had found seventeen documents
pertaining to the petitioner's ancestors wherein their caste has been
recorded as 'Mane', 'Kunbi', 'Mani', 'Mana Kunbi', 'Manya' and 'Mane'. The
petitioner failed to explain the said adverse entries, and therefore, the
4 wp2189.24.odt
order passed by the Committee is just and proper, and no interference is
required.
7. We have appreciated the rival contentions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned order and record. We have also
perused the original record and returned it.
8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has produced Validity
Certificates granted in favour of his father and uncle on 24-12-2008 and
27-02-2009, respectively. Therefore, the petitioner claims that as per
Explanation (3) of Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification
of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, "Rules of 2012") and in view of
the mandate laid down in the Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), the petitioner is
entitled to the validity.
9. It is pertinent to note that the learned Assistant Government
Pleader has not disputed that till this date neither the Validity Certificates
have been cancelled nor any show cause notice was issued to the validity
holders to recall the Validity Certificates, therefore, we are of the view that
as per Explanation (3) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2012 and the mandate
laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), the petitioner is entitled to the
validity.
5 wp2189.24.odt
10. The Committee, while passing the order impugned, has discarded
the Validity Certificates issued in favour of his father and uncle as they
were issued without conducting a vigilance cell enquiry, and the then
Committees passed cryptic orders while issuing the Validity Certificates.
The fact remains that neither the said orders have been challenged nor set
aside to date. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the said Validity
Certificates issued in favour of his father and uncle.
11. The Committee, in its order (Page No.133), has referred the Validity
Certificates and the order passed in the said proceedings. We would like to
reproduce the orders passed by the then Committees, as under :
ORDER
"Shri Gajendrakumar Vitthalrao Rannaware (hereinafter referred
to as an "applicant") has applied vide his application dated 28-1-09 for
verification of his tribe claim as belonging to Mana, Scheduled Tribe.
The Scrutiny Committee verified the proposal submitted by the
applicant. The applicant has submitted required information in Form "E"
as par Rule 11(1) and documents thereto as mentioned in Part IV-B along
with his original caste certificate in support of his tribe claim.
The Scrutiny Committee has perused the information and
documents submitted by the applicant and have appreciated the same.
The Scrutiny Committee is fully satisfied after verifying the documents
and proofs produced by the applicant in support of his tribe claim. The
Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the tribe claimed by
the applicant is genuine one and therefore, as per Maharashtra Act
No.XXIII of 2001 and Rule 12(2), dated 4-6-2003, the said case has not
been handed over to the Police Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee
for detailed School and home enquiry and the Scrutiny Committee
decided to give decision on merit.
The Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the
documents placed on record are sufficient to prove the applicant's tribe
claim towards Mana, Scheduled Tribe.
After considering the entire evidence on record, we, the Members
of the Scrutiny Committee, have unanimously come to the conclusion
that the claim of the applicant, as belonging to Mana, a Scheduled Tribe,
is established and proved. Therefore, the Caste Certificate bearing
R.C.No. 2053/MRC-81/04-05 dated 16-06-05 issued by Dy. Collector,
Wardha is held valid, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in C.A.
6 wp2189.24.odt
No.5270/2004. The validity of the Tribe Certificate be issued accordingly
to the applicant."
12. A bare perusal of the orders dated 24-12-2008 and 27-02-2009
passed by the then Committee indicate that after verifying the documents
and being fully satisfied, the Committee granted Validity to them. The
Committee, in its order, categorically observed that after considering the
entire evidence and documents on record, the Members of the Committee
unanimously came to the conclusion that the claim of the applicants
therein as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe is established and proved.
Also, it is observed that the documents placed on record are sufficient to
prove the applicants' Tribe Claim towards the Mana Scheduled Tribe. The
said reasons themselves show that the Committee, after its satisfaction,
has passed the order for issuance of the Validity Certificates in favour of
the father and uncle of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Committee, without conducting the vigilance cell, passed the cryptic
order, and, thus, those Validity Certificates are not helpful for the
petitioner in support of his claim. It appears that the Committee has also
considered the proposal submitted by them and documents in its proper
perspective as per Rule 12 of the Rules of 2003. Thus, the findings
recorded by the Committee regarding the Validities issued in favour of the
father and uncle of the petitioner that those Validity Certificates were not
issued as per the procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Rules, 2003 and, therefore, are not helpful for the
petitioner, is contrary to Rule 12 of the Rules of 2003 as well as the
7 wp2189.24.odt
mandate laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra). On the
contrary, as per the mandate laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale
(supra), the petitioner's claim ought not to have been refused, and the
same status shall be awarded to the petitioner that he belongs to the
'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Thus, his case is covered by the law laid down in
Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra).
13. It is to be noted that neither the Committee nor the Vigilance Cell
have disputed the petitioner's relationship with his father, Gajendra, and
real uncle Vijendra.
14. The petitioner's father, in support of the petitioner's claim, has
given a genealogical tree of his family. The Committee has referred to the
same in its order (Page No.117). We would like to reproduce the same as
under :
'ksxks
|
cdkjke
_________________|__________________
| | |
foBBy ukao ekfgr uksgh ukao ekghr ukgh
¼foey½ tUe uksan vkgs eqyxh
_______|__________________________
| | |
ek/kqjh xtssanzdqekj fotsanzdqekj
fiuh nkaMsdj ¼iRuh feuk½ ¼iRuh furk½
xkao eax#G nLrxhj ______|__________ ____|____________
| | | |
Hkkos'k izkatyh lkSE;k fogku
¼vtZnkj½
8 wp2189.24.odt
15. During the vigilance enquiry, the petitioner produced a copy of the
extract of the school admission and leaving register of 1946 pertaining to
his grandfather, Vithoba Bakharam, wherein his caste was recorded as
"Mana". Similarly, the petitioner produced a copy of the extract of the
Service-Book of his grandfather, Vitthal Bakaramji Rannaware, wherein
year of his date of birth was mentioned as '1938' and his caste was
recorded as "Mana". The Vigilance Cell or the Committee neither disputed
nor denied those documents. But the Vigilance Cell in his report in
paragraph 10 (Page No.43) categorically stated that they had verified the
entry dated 02-07-1946 and found it to be correct, wherein the
grandfather's date of birth was recorded as '09-10-1938' and caste was
recorded as "Mana". Similarly, the Vigilance Cell had verified the copy of
the extract of the Service-Book of the grandfather of the petitioner, Vitthal
Bakaram Rannaware and referred to the same, in paragraph 3 of the
report (Page No.41), that they found the said document to be true and
correct. They also observed that the said document is dated 21-09-1979.
In the Service-Book, the petitioner's grandfather's date of birth was
mentioned as '09-10-1938', and his caste was recorded as 'Mana'.
However, according to the Committee, the Vigilance Cell discovered
seventeen documents between 1942 and 1962, in which the caste of the
persons was recorded as "Mane, Kunbi, Mani, Mana Kunbi, Manya, and
Mane". Therefore, the Vigilance Cell and the Committee discarded the
documents of 1946 and 1979. On perusal of the said entries, it is evident
9 wp2189.24.odt
that out of them, entries dated 15-09-1940 and 30-04-1950 pertaining to
one Mahadeo Motiram Narnaware, whose name is not shown in either of
the genealogical trees provided in support of the petitioner's claim.
Similarly, the genealogical tree does not show the names of other persons
on whom the Vigilance Cell and Committee rely. Therefore, it was
incumbent on the Vigilance Cell as well as the Committee to establish
their relationship with the petitioner when their names are not shown in
the genealogical tree, and the petitioner categorically denied his
relationship with them by filing the explanation.
16. The Vigilance Cell or the Committee failed to demonstrate how
Motiram, Mahadeo, Janba, Tukaram, Yashwant, Rambhau and Ramesh are
in blood relations of the petitioner. Therefore, relying on the documents of
those persons and recording the reason that they found the adverse
entries in the documents pertaining to those persons is contrary to the
facts on record and the settled position of law as discussed above.
Therefore, the said finding cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Samaj Sanrakshan
Samiti (supra) has held that "the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus
test. Likewise, the oldest pre-constitutional document has more probative
value than the subsequent document". Thus, it appears that the finding
regarding the affinity test seems contrary to the mandate laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
10 wp2189.24.odt
18. To sum up the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner, to
substantiate his claim, has produced validities granted in favour of his
father, Gajendra and uncle, Vijendra and a pre-constitution era document
of 1946 and one document of 1979 pertaining to his grandfather, wherein
his caste was recorded as "Mana". The authenticity of those documents
and entries made therein is neither disputed nor denied by the Committee
nor the Vigilance Cell. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the same as
the documents of 1946, being from the pre-constitutional era, and old
ones have a greater probative value. Thus, it seems that the findings
recorded by the Committee are based on the disputed documents, whose
relationship was categorically denied by the petitioner. As such, the
findings recorded by the Committee appear contrary to the mandate laid
down in the cases of Apoorva Vinay Nichale and Maharashtra Adiwasi Samaj
Sanrakshan Samiti (supra).
19. In the wake of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained
in the eyes of the law. Hence, we allow the petition and quash and set
aside the impugned order dated 12-12-2023, passed by the respondent-
the Committee. It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to the
"Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.1-Committee is directed to issue
a Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
11 wp2189.24.odt
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/05/2025 16:30:00
