Bombay High Court
Ku. Priya Laxman Wakodikar (Priya ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4921-DB
1 wp3527.2022..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3527 OF 2022
Ku. Priya Laxman Wakodikar
(Smt. Priya Sudhakar Pandit)
Age 35 yrs, Occ. Unemployed,
Home Maker, c/o Sudhakar Pandhit,
Plot No. 20, Adiwasi Society,
Behind Gujarati Colony, Netaji Nagar,
Behind Kalamana Market,
Nagpur 440 035. ......PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur, through
its Dy. Director and Member Secretary,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan,
Giripeth, Nagpur 440 010
2. The Assistant Manager of Sales
(Retail) Nagpur -1
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Nagpur Territory, Retail,
7, Chitnis Marg,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001
3. The Territory Manager (Retail),
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd,
7, Chitnis Marg,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. A.A. Dhawas,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl. GP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
2 wp3527.2022..odt
DATE : 08.05.2025
JUDGMENT (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.
2. The petition questions the order dated 11.08.2021,
passed by respondent No. 1, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur (for short, " the Committee"), thereby rejecting
the petitioner's claim that she belongs to the ' Halba' Scheduled
Tribe.
3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the ' Halba'
Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 29.07.2019, the competent
authority issued a Tribe Certificate to her. Pursuant to an
advertisement issued by respondents nos. 2 and 3, she has
submitted her Tribe Certificate along with the documents to them.
Respondent No. 2 forwarded the same to the Committee for its
verification. The Committee, being dissatisfied with the documents,
forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for verification. After
conducting an enquiry, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the
Committee on 11.01.2021, observing that adverse entries of ' Koshti'
3 wp3527.2022..odt
and 'Halba Koshti' were discovered during the enquiry. The
Committee vide show cause notice called upon the petitioner to
submit her explanation about the adverse entries. In response,
though the petitioner contended that she had submitted
explanations on 16.04.2021 and 12.05.2021, the same were not
produced on record. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, considering the Vigilance Cell Report, her explanation,
and the documents on record, the Committee vide impugned order
has rejected the Tribe's claim of the petitioner, hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel contended that the
petitioner in support of her Tribe claim has produced 12 documents
on record, out of which, a copy of the School Leaving Certificate
pertaining to her elder uncle Yadavrao is dated 16.07.1956, wherein
his caste has been recorded as ' Halba'. The said document is the
oldest one. However, the Committee has not considered the same
and erred in relying on the tax assessment receipt discovered by
Vigilance Cell during the enquiry of 1944-45 and 1965-66
pertaining to her grandfather, wherein his caste was recorded as
'Koshti'. He further argued that the sale deed or tax assessment
register does not require the mention of the caste of a person
4 wp3527.2022..odt
concerned, and therefore, said document cannot be taken into
consideration while determining the issue of caste of the petitioner.
If said document is ignored, then the oldest document is of 1956
wherein the caste of her ancestor is recorded as ' Halba'; thus, the
petitioner has discharged the burden cast upon her. Learned Senior
Counsel, to substantiate his contention, has relied upon the
following judgments:
i) Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj, (2008)2 SCC 186;
ii) State of Punjab V/s Mohinder Singh;(2005)3 SCC 702;
iii) Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, 1988 (Supp) SCC 604;
iv) Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1982)2 SCC 202;
v) Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice Chairman Scheduled
Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and ors
(Writ Petition No. 5095/2021.
Based on the mandate in the above judgments, it is
submitted that recording a person's caste in the property rights
register was not mandatory. Therefore, he propounded that
considering the tax receipts as the oldest documents, the Committee
has erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim, which order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of the law. Hence, he urged for allowing the
petition.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Fulzele, learned Addl.GP strenuously
argued that during the vigilance enquiry, the Vigilance Cell
5 wp3527.2022..odt
discovered the tax receipts of 1944-47 and 1965-66 pertaining to
the grandfather of the petitioner, wherein his caste was recorded as
'Koshti'. These are the oldest documents. Considering the same, the
Committee has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim; hence, he
urged for dismissal of the petition.
6. We have appreciated rival submissions of the learned Sr.
Counsel and Addi. G.P. and perused the impugned order and record.
We have also gone through the original record and returned the
same.
7. At the outset, it is evident that the petitioner, to
substantiate her claim, has produced 12 documents on record which
pertain to her father, cousin-grandfather and herself. The Vigilance
Cell during the enquiry has discovered three documents, i.e., an
extract of the School Admission Register of the father of the
petitioner dated 20.06.1970 wherein his caste was recorded as
'Halba-Koshti' and two other documents i.e. Tax Assessment
Receipts of 1944 to 1947 pertaining to grandfather of the petitioner
wherein his caste was recorded as ' Koshti'. Out of these documents,
the oldest documents are the 'Tax assessment receipts' of 1944-1947
pertaining to the petitioner's grandfather. Considering the said
6 wp3527.2022..odt
documents, the Committee has invalidated the petitioner's claim.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that in the 'Tax assessment
receipts', under the Indian Registration Act, there is no necessity to
record the caste of a person while registering the document.
Similarly, in 'Tax assessment receipts', it is also not mandatory to
record the caste of the person concerned. Therefore, those
documents have no probative value while considering the caste
claim of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that by filing a reply to
the show cause notice, the petitioner has not disputed the said Tax
receipts, nor does the petitioner dispute having Tax receipts, but her
only grievance is that they have no probative value while
considering the caste claim. However, we do not find substance in
the contention of the learned senior counsel in that regard, as the
documents were registered under the Indian Registration Act.
Therefore, those have evidentiary value unless anyone disputes the
same. Here, the petitioner is not disputing the said documents; thus,
there is no reason to discard the said documents. Secondly, even
though it is assumed that the recording of caste was not mandatory
in the Tax register or the document, which was recorded in 1944,
without any insistence to record it in the sale deed or Property Tax
Register, the petitioner's grandfather had voluntarily recorded his
7 wp3527.2022..odt
caste, therefore, the same cannot be discarded merely on the
contention of learned senior counsel that the recording of caste was
not mandatory.
8. In Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj and State of Punjab (supra), the
horoscope was produced to prove the age of the person, and
therefore, the Court held that
"The horoscope was inadmissible in establishing the age and
was discarded".
In Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit (supra), it was held
that -
"The entries regarding date of birth contained in the scholar's
register and the secondary school examination have no
probative value, if no person on whose information the date
of birth of the candidate was mentioned in the school register
is examined".
In Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Court
has held that
"Ordinarily, the oral evidence can hardly be useful to
determine the correct age of a person, and the question,
therefore, would largely depend on the documents and the
nature of their authenticity."
All of the above judgments are based on determining a
person's age and have no relevance to determining a person's caste.
Therefore, in our view, the law laid down in the said decisions
8 wp3527.2022..odt
hardly assists the petitioner in supporting her claim.
9. In Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice Chairman
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and ors
(supra)the petitioner produced document of 1959 pertaining to his
ancestor on record wherein his caste was recorded as 'Halba'
Scheduled Tribe and the said claim was invalidated by the
Committee based on the document of 1963 the Property Right
Register wherein caste of the ancestors of the petitioner therein was
recorded as Koshti. The document of 1963 was subsequent, and the
older document was of 1959. Therefore, based on the 1959
document, the claim of the petitioner was allowed; however, it was
observed cursorily that
"It was not mandatory to record the caste of the person
concerned in the property tax register".
However, in the case at hand, the ' Tax Assessment
Receipts' are from 1944-1947 and pertain to the petitioner's
grandfather. The receipts are undisputed and the oldest one.
Therefore, there is no reason to discard the same. Thus, the facts in
the above judgment and the case at hand are distinct. Therefore, in
our view, the dictum laid down in the said judgment is hardly of any
assistance to the petitioner in support of her claim.
9 wp3527.2022..odt
10. It is a settled principle that a person gets their caste by
birth, and it is a settled law that pre-independent era documents
have more probative value than subsequent documents. As such, the
pre-independent era entries about the ancestors of the petitioners
have more probative value.
Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000 (Act of 200) cast burden on the petitioner to prove that the
aforesaid entries of "Koshti" are incorrect or that they belong to
"Halba" Scheduled Tribe. The fact remains that the petitioners have
failed to discharge such burden. On the contrary, they have not
disputed entries in 'Tax assessment receipts', wherein their
ancestors' caste had been recorded as "Koshti". Moreover, on
verification of the original record, we find substance in the
contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader in that
regard.
As such, from the available documentary evidence, it
cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged the burden as
10 wp3527.2022..odt
contemplated under Section 8 of the Act of 2000, thereby proving
that she belongs to "Halba", a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, there is
no reason to discard those documents or entries wherein their
ancestors' caste had been recorded as "Koshti".
11. Considering the above discussion and the documents on
record, it is evident that petitioner has failed to discharge burden
cast upon her to prove that she belongs to " Halba" Scheduled Tribe
as against the document discovered by the Vigilance Cell of pre-
constitution era i.e. 1944-47 belonging to her grandfather wherein
his caste has been recorded as ' Koshti'. The petitioner has neither
disputed nor denied the document, so there is no reason to discard
said document. The document of 1944, being the oldest one, has
greater probative value than any other subsequent document. The
entries in the said document are found to be inconsistent and
against the petitioner's claim, and the petitioner has failed to
explain said inconsistent entries and has failed to discharge the
burden that lies on her.
12. In this background, the petitioner, in our opinion, cannot
be said to be belonging to the " Halba" Scheduled Tribe; rather, the
Committee is justified in recording the finding that the petitioner
11 wp3527.2022..odt
has failed to demonstrate that she belongs to the ' Halba' Scheduled
Tribe. That being so, no case for causing interference in
extraordinary jurisdiction is made out by the petitioner; as such, the
petition being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
R. Belkhede,
Personal Assistant
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/05/2025 16:10:06
