High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 729 / 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 20251] Surekha Madhavrao Pillewad @ Surekha Shankar Tamwad Age : 38 Yrs., Occu : Agril. R/o. Gadga, Tq. Naigaon (Khair), Dist. Nanded2] Sainath Yashwant Pilewad Age : 34 Yrs, Occu : Agril. R/o Raher, Tq. Naigaon (Khair), Dist. Nanded .. Petitioners Versus 1] Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kiinwat (Headquarter at Chha. Sambhajinagar) through its Member Secretary2] District Collector, Nanded, District Nanded .. Respondents...Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Mahesh S. DeshmukhAGP for respondents no. 1 and 2 : Ms. S.S. Joshi... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.RESERVED ON : 13 FEBRUARY 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 18 FEBRUARY 2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. With theconsent of the both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage ofadmission. 2 WP / 729 / 2025 2.The petitioners are taking exception to the commonjudgment and order of respondent no. 1 – scrutiny committee, wherebyit has refused to validate their ‘Koli Mahadeo’ scheduled tribecertificates. 3.The learned advocate for the petitioners would take usthrough the genealogy and the record inter alia pointing out that theoldest pre-constitutional school record of petitioner – Sainath’sgrandfather – Sambhaji Laxman Pillewad of 09-06-1046 mentioned hiscaste in the school register as ‘Mahadeo Koli’. The committee has notassigned cogent and convincing reasons for discarding it. Thoughduring the vigilance enquiry, it was verified by approaching the school,merely on the ground that all the 9 entries at page no. 1 of the schoolregister, are in the same ink and same handwriting, the committee hasrefused to accept it and has entertained a suspicion.4.Once it is found that the school record was very wellavailable with the school, the committee could not have discarded it inthis manner. He would thus submit that this was a reaonablyacceptable evidence but has been discarded arbitrarily.5.Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the committee hasalso based its inference by referring to few sale deeds whereinpetitioners’ blood relatives while selling the lands, expressly mentioned 3 WP / 729 / 2025 in the sale deeds that they did not belong to any scheduled caste orscheduled tribe. He would advert our attention to the decision dated18.08.2023 passed in the matter of Prathamesh S/o BhanudasThakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (writ petitionno.10198 of 2023 with connected writ petition) and would submit thatthis circumstance would be too remote. He would submit that that thestatement in the sale deed could have been deliberately made toobviate any objection to the execution of the sale deeds.6.Mr. Deshmukh would submit that though primary burden toprove that an individual belongs to a particular caste or tribe has beensaddled on the claimants by section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIIIof 2001, the degree of proof required is preponderance of probabilityand strict proof is not required. Apart from the pre-constitutional recordof Sambhaji, there were few favourable entries as well of the year 1975onwards which could have been, in the normal course, sufficient todischarge the burden.7.Per contra, the learned AGP would submit that except thedubious entry of Sambhaji, there was nothing favourable to thepetitioners. As is mentioned by the committee, there is enormouscontrary record of older times to belie the petitioners’ claims. Father –Madhav’s school record of 1960 and 1963 described him as ‘Marathi’and ‘Koli’ respectively, whereas the favourable entries relied upon by 4 WP / 729 / 2025 the petitioners are of the period 1975 onwards. Oldest record wouldhave a greater probative value and would be sufficient to discard thesubsequent favourable record. She would, further, submit that theappreciation of the committee regarding dubious nature of the schoolrecord of Sambhaji of the year 1946, is a plausible one and this Courtcannot sit in appeal to reach an independent conclusion.8.Ms. Joshi would further submit that while executing thesale deed, the petitioners’ blood relatives expressly declared in the saledeeds that they did not belong to any scheduled tribe or scheduledcaste, which declaration is sufficient to belie the petitioners’ claims.9.We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe original record.10.Taking up the first piece of evidence, stated to be of a pre-constitutional time, obviously if it turns out to be a genuine schoolrecord, would carry a greater probative value and would easilysubstantiate petitioners’ claims.11.As can be seen from the vigilance report and thereasoning assigned by the committee, the committee seems to havereadily accepted the remark of the vigilance officer. Though by virtue ofthe mechanism provided under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001and the rules framed thereunder, documents produced for 5 WP / 729 / 2025 substantiating a caste or tribe claim need to be fortified by resorting tosome vigilance enquiry, that does not mean that the committee which isconferred with quasi judicial power should readily accept whatever isreported by the vigilance officer. Statutory duty is cast upon thecommittee to doubly ensure by undertaking a scrutiny whether thereport of the vigilance officer should be accepted or not.12.Merely because the vigilance officer perceives for thereasons, he has mentioned in the report, the committee cannot acceptit in verbatim without cross checking such information from the originalrecord. This is precisely seems to have happened in the matter inhand. Whatever was transpired during vigilance enquiry and reportedby the vigilance officer, has been reduced in the order under challengein verbatim. There is nothing to demonstrate that the committee hadtaken pains in calling the original school register and verifying it withthe assistance of the headmaster from whose custody it would becoming.13.Drawing inference merely by referring to one page of theschool register and that too simply by mentioning that all the 9 entriesfrom that page are in the same ink and in the same handwriting wouldcome with a responsibility on the scrutiny committee to verify the entireschool record before it substantiated and accepted the opinion of thevigilance officer.
Decision
6 WP / 729 / 2025 14.True it is that barring this pre-constitutional isolated entry,the other record available before the committee wherein the petitioners’blood relatives were described in the school record as ‘Koli’ in 1960and 1963 would carry a greater probative value and would be sufficientto dis-lodge the entries of the period 1975 onwards.15.Since this is not an adversarial litigation, when as pointedout herein-above, we have formed a view about the committee havingnot verified the original school register itself and has merely acceptedand proceeded towing the line of the vigilance officer, it is a fit case toremand the matter back to the scrutiny committee with a direction totake a fresh decision, if necessary, by resorting to additional vigilanceenquiry and particularly to undertake the exercise of examining theoriginal school register.This would prejudice none and rather wouldbe in aid of justice.16.The writ petition is allowed partly.17.Impugned order is quashed and set aside.18.The matter is remanded back to the respondent – scrutinycommittee for afresh decision in the light of the observations madeherein-above. 7 WP / 729 / 2025 19.The petitioners shall appear before the committee on 25February 2025 and the committee shall thereafter decide the proposalas expeditiously as possible and in any case within four months. Ii isclarified that the scrutiny committee is at liberty to decide the proposaluninfluenced by this order.20.Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/