Writ Petition No. 6119 of 2023 · Bombay High Court

6119.23wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6119 OF 2023 Eknath Liladhar Thakur, Age: 57 years, Occ : Service,R/o. M/p Thakurwada, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. JalgaonAt present resident of Plot No.48, Pragati Nagar, Jail Road, Nashik….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,Through its Secretary2. Sub Divisional Officer, Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon3. Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, Dhule, Through its Member Secretary ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr D. B. Shinde, Advocate for petitionerMs P. J. Bharad, A.G.P. for respondents/State CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 18th February, 2025

6119.23wp(2) JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties.

The petitioner craves leave to delete respondent Nos.4 and5. Leave is granted. The petitioner to carry out amendment forthwith.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the order dated 27/04/2023, passed byrespondent No.3/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule, invalidating petitioner’s claim for ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe ina proceeding under Section 7 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), NomadicTribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.

The committee has observed that the petitioner failed toestablish his claim on the basis of documentary evidence, as well as onaccount of failure to prove affinity with ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

Mr D. B. Shinde, learned advocate for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner has established his claim on the basis of

6119.23wp(3) ample documentary evidence. On the basis of certificates of validityof Pundalik Liladhar Thakur, his real brother, and RamchandraBaburao Thakur, his cousin brother, he vehemently submits that thepetitioner is entitled for validation of his claim. He submits that thegeneral observation of the committee that the validities were obtainedby suppression of facts demonstrates erroneous approach on the part ofthe committee since no fraud is proved to disbelieve the validities.

Per contra, Ms. P. J. Bharad, learned A.G.P. justifies theimpugned order. It is submitted that there was a negative vigilance cellreport in the matter of Pundalik Liladhar Thakur, and in the matter of Ramchandra Baburao Thakur, there was a short order referring only tothe decisions in two other writ petitions. She vehemently submits thatthe validities in favour of Pundalik and Ramchandra have noconclusive value to decide petitioner’s caste claim and the committeehas rightly discarded these validity certificates.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused theoriginal file in the matter of Eknath Liladhar Thakur (petitioner),Pundalik Liladhar Thakur and Ramchandra Baburao Thakur.

Perusal of original record of Pundalik Liladhar Thakurreveals that, by a reasoned order dated 28/11/2019, the committee has

6119.23wp(4) validated his claim by relying upon the validity of RamchandraBaburao Thakur (cousin brother). Perusal of original record of Ramchandra Baburao Thakur reveals that, by order dated 07/03/2005,the committee has validated his claim on the basis of a positivevigilance cell enquiry report and in view of the decisions of this Courtin Writ Petition No.3153/1996 and Writ Petition No.4156/1996. It isthus clear that claim of Ramchandra was validated by a reasoned orderwhich was basis of validity of claim of Pundalik, and the petitioner, being real brother of Pundalik, is entitled to derive benefit.

The petitioner has filed on record affidavit of genealogywhich shows his relationship with the validity holders. The relation ofpetitioner with validity holders is not disputed. It has to be seen thatthe claims of validity holders were decided by following dueprocedure and in view of the law laid down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657], thepetitioner is entitled to claim benefit of their validities.

As regards opposition of respondents alleging suppressionof documents while deciding the claims of validity holders, it has to benoted that, although the committee has expressed its intention to

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk