High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
953.WP-5638-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 5638 OF 2024Sakshi Nanasaheb KoliAge: 20 years, Occu.: Student,R/o. Kasti Bk. Tq. Lohara,Dist. Dharashiv. .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Tribal Development Department(Social Justice Department),Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Joint Commissioner,Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad,Add – beside CIDCO Bus stand,CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Respondents…Mr. A.B. Kale i/by Mr. Mohanish V. Thoart, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondents/State.… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P BRAHME, JJ. RESERVED ON : 16 JULY 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JULY 2024JUDGMENT [Per Shailesh P. Brahme J.] : .Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consentof the parties heard finally.2.Petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated20.05.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee,[1]
Legal Reasoning
953.WP-5638-2024.odtconfiscating and invalidating tribe certificate of scheduled tribe,Koli Mahadev. The Scrutiny Committee discarded old fasli entriesof Yashwanta Daji and Shamrao Yashwant Koli allegingmanipulation. It is held that pre-indepedence record was notproduced. The contrary entries of the relatives of the petitionerwere considered for invalidating the claim. The place of residenceof the petitioner and his forefathers is found to be incompatiblewith the tribe claim. The affinity test is held to be against thepetitioner. Lastly, validity certificate of Venkat Shamrao Koli, realuncle of the petitioner is held to be unreliable. 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.B. Kale submitsthat after order of remand passed by High Court in Writ PetitionNo.1164/2023, petitioner submitted application on 14.03.2023before the Committee producing old documents so as to havevigilance inquiry. Only two documents were referred to thevigilance cell for inquiry and remaining documents havingprobative value were excluded without any reason. He wouldsubmit that there is fasli record supporting the petitioner whichhas been discarded without sound reasons.4.He would submit that petitioner’s uncle Venkat ShamraoKoli was issued with validity certificate by relying upon validitycertificate of Satish Limbaji Koli. There was vigilance inquiryconducted in the matter of Venkat Shamrao Koli and by areasoned order, he was issued with validity certificate whichshould enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The selfsame recordwas already scrutinized. Learned Counsel refers to judgment in[2] 953.WP-5638-2024.odtthe matter of Aishwarya Shesharao Kabade and Anr. Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.111/2021. Hetenders on record coloured photocopies of old revenue entry andbirth record of Shamrao Yashwanta to show that there is nomanipulation. 5. Per contra, learned AGP supports impugned judgment andorder. In support of his submission, original papers of petitioner,her brother Kunal and their father Nanasaheb are produced onrecord. Learned AGP submits that the Scrutiny Committee isjustified in rejecting the claim, considering contrary entries andmanipulation in the record. After remand, fresh inquiry wasconducted on the basis of which old fasli documents arediscarded. He would further submit that the validity certificate ofVenkat is suspicious and procured by suppressing material factsand incompatible genealogies. 6.Learned AGP informs that the Committee has decided toreopen validity of Venkat Shamrao Koli. A reliance is placed onjudgment of High Court in the matter of Maharashtra AdiwasiThakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra andOrs., 2023 SCC Online SC 326. It is further informed that thedocuments which are contended to be produced vide applicationdated 14.03.2023 by the petitioner before the Committee, arenot found in the record. 7.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties andhave gone through relevant record which was made available by[3] 953.WP-5638-2024.odtboth the sides. Petitioner’s claim was invalidated by the ScrutinyCommittee on 20.09.2023, on earlier occasion. Being aggrievedWrit Petition No.2264/2023 was preferred in the High Court.During the course of arguments, old fasli record was tenderedacross the bar and due to that matter was remitted to theScrutiny Committee for consideration afresh with a liberty to thepetitioner to produce additional documents. Impugned judgmentand order was passed on 20.05.2024. 8.It is the contention of the petitioner that on 14.03.2023couple of documents were produced before the Committeealongwith application and there is acknowledgment of the officeof the Committee for having received application. This applicationwas tendered before earlier decision by the Committee wasrendered on 20.09.2023. Application dated 14.03.2023 was notsubmitted after order of remand passed by this Court on03.11.2023. There is no substance in the submission of thepetitioner that the documents produced with the applicationdated 14.03.2023 were not scrutinized. 9.Petitioner relies on the revenue record of Yashwant Daji Koliof 1358 (1948) fasli and birth record of Yashwant Shamrao Koliwhich is of 1343 (1933). These documents were referred to thevigilance inquiry and the report is received in respect of birthentry of Shamrao Yashwant of 1343 fasli. It is reported that word‘Koli Mahadev’ appears in the dark letters. We have gone throughthe report and coloured photocopies of extract of entry no.10which is in Modi script. We do not notice any change of ink or[4] 953.WP-5638-2024.odtdark letters so as to suspect any manipulation. The VigilanceOfficer or the Committee could have solicited opinion ofhandwriting expert. Without resorting to due verification, afinding is recorded, castigating the entry to be manipulatedwhich is perversity and arbitrariness. 10.So far as revenue entry of Yashwant Daji Koli of fasli 1358is concerned, we do not find that there is any report submittedby revenue authority or Vigilance Officer regarding genuinenessof the entry. The petitioner produced photocopies of revenueentries of Shamrao Yashwant Koli, Bapu Daji Koli which were notreferred to vigilance enquiry. The Committee is bold enough torecord that word ‘Koli Mahadev’ has been incorporated indifferent handwriting and ink, but this finding is unsupported byany material. This finding is also contrary to the record. 11.The findings recorded by the Committee in respect of faslientries of 1343 and 1358 are unsustainable. Both the entries areof pre-independence period indicating caste as ‘Koli Mahadev’.The relationship of the petitioner with Yashwant Daji Koli andShamrao Yashwant Koli is not disputed. In view of law laid downby Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Versus Committee forScrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, reported in(2012) 1 SCC 113, the entries have greater probative value andsupport the claim of the petitioner. 12.Petitioner’s real uncle Venkat Shamrao Koli was issued withvalidity certificate which is pressed into service by the petitioner.[5] 953.WP-5638-2024.odtThe validity certificate of Venkat was discarded by the ScrutinyCommittee for two reasons i.e. suppression of the contraryentries and for giving two inconsistent genealogies by way ofaffidavit of selfsame affiant who is none other than validityholder, Venkat Shamrao Koli. It is not disputed that Venkat wasissued with validity certificate after conducting vigilance inquiry.In his case, reliance was placed on validity certificate of SatishLimbaji Koli who happens to be descendant of Rama. In case ofVenkat, affidavit was filed by him stating relationship withvalidity holder, Satish showing two sons of Daji namely Rama andYashwanta. Whereas in the present matter, Venkat Shamrao Kolifiled affidavit, showing two sons of Daji namely Bapu andYashwanta. There is no mentioned of son Rama.13.Apparently there is inconsistency in the genealogies givenby Venkat in his own matter and in the present matter. We are ofthe considered view that merely because of inconsistency in thegenealogies, we cannot jump to a conclusion that petitioner’sclaim is false. The Committee has already proposed to reopenvalidity of Venkat. It would pe open for the Committee to inquireinto inconsistent genealogies and fraud if any. Unless validitycertificate of Venkat is revoked, the petitioner cannot be deprivedof its benefit. We, therefore, do not approve the finding recordedby the Committee in this regard. 14.Learned AGP seeks to rely upon the judgment in the matterof Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti(supra). At this juncture, validity certificate of Venkat needs to[6]
Decision
953.WP-5638-2024.odtbe followed as per law laid down in paragraph no.22.15.In the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter ofMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra),it is held that affinity test is not a litmus test and conclusivewhen there is other reliable material on record. The finding inrespect of affinity test recorded by the Scrutiny Committee isinconsequential. The place of residence of the claimant or hisforefathers cannot be considered as a decisive factor, after arearestriction was removed in 1976. Therefore, we are not inclinedto accept the finding of the Committee in that regard. 16.For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment andorder is unsustainable and we pass following order :ORDERa.The Writ Petition is allowed.b.The impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2024 isquashed and set aside.c.The respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee shall immediatelyissue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner for ‘Koli Mahadev’scheduled tribe. d.The same shall be subject to the outcome of re-verificationof the validity certificates of Venkat Shamrao Koli as proposed bythe Scrutiny Committee. e.Petitioner shall not claim equity. [7] 953.WP-5638-2024.odtf.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGEnajeeb….[8]