Writ Petition No. 5299 of 2024 · Bombaybench High Court · 2024
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:10567-DB *1* wp5299o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.5299 OF 2024WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.6912 OF 2024 INWRIT PETITION NO.5299 OF 2024Ganesh Narayan Koli (Bagul),Age : 44 years, Occupation : Sarpanch,R/o Khed-digar, Post. Raikhed,Tq.Shahda, Dist. Nandurbar....PETITIONER-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra.Through its Secretary,Tribal Development,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, Nandurbar.Through its Deputy Director (R).3.The Tahsildar,Shahda Tahsil Office,Shahda, Tq.Shahda,Dist. Nandurbar.4.The Sub Divisional Officer,Shahda, Tq. Shahda,Dist. Nandurbar.5.The Collector,Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar....RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
*2* wp5299o24…Shri M.V. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.Ms. P.J. Bharad, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State.... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.Reserved on : 17th December, 2024Pronounced on : 08th April, 2025JUDGMENT ( Per Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. ) :- Heard. 2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by consent of parties.3.The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18thMarch 2024 passed by respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committeeinvalidating his claim for ‘Tokre Koli’, Scheduled Tribe, in aproceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra ScheduledCastes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special BackwardCategory (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000, (for short ‘the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII *3* wp5299o24of 2001’).4.Claiming to be an elected Sarpanch of villageKheddigar, the petitioner’s tribe claim came to be referred torespondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for validation of ‘TokreKoli’ Scheduled Tribe certificate.5.By the impugned order, the Committee has observedthat the petitioner failed to establish his claim on the basis ofdocumentary evidence as well as on account of failure to provehis affinity with ‘Tokre Koli’ tribe. While dealing with thedocumentary evidence, the Committee has assigned variedreasons for discarding the documents relied upon by thepetitioner. The Committee has noted its inferences aboutinterpolation in the documents submitted by the petitioner andabout the suspicious nature of documents on the basis of whichthe petitioner tried to establish his claim. The impugned orderrefers to the documents submitted by the petitioner, mentioningthe caste as Koli, Hindu Koli, Tokre Koli. The committeerecorded an inference that there are no documents of pre-independence era and the documents relied upon by thepetitioner are suspicious and fabricated. The committee has,
Decision
*4* wp5299o24therefore, invalidated the claim holding the petitioner liable foraction under Sections 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra ActNo.XXIII of 2001.6.Advocate M. V. Thorat, appearing for the petitionervehemently submitted that the impugned order is bad and illegalbeing passed without considering the vital documentaryevidence. He submitted that the committee adopted an erroneousapproach to discard the vital documents in support of his tribeclaim and that the committee relied upon some documents whichare not related to the family members of the petitioner. Heinvited our attention to the documents filed vide applicationdated 12th July 2024 bearing Civil Application no. 6912 of 2024for production of documents, which inter alia include thedocuments about his election as Sarpanch and the documents ofthe years 1926, 1941, 1942, 1963 and 1944 relied upon by thepetitioner in support of his tribe claim. He filed the colourphotocopies of these pre-independence era documents. Byrelying upon these additional documents, he also tried to putforward a case for remand of the matter to the committee forfresh decision. *5* wp5299o247.Per contra, Ms. P.J. Bharad, learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 5, strongly opposedthe petition and justified the impugned order. She strenuouslysubmitted that the petitioner utterly failed to establish his tribeclaim. Her submissions are manifold, including,i) That the petitioner has engaged in acts of deceit andfraud, which became clear from the interpolations in thedocuments of the petitioner. She invited our attention to thedocuments from the original record, which shows interpolations/insertions in the documents of the years 1926 and 1941.ii)She also invited our attention to the mischievousconduct of the petitioner, who suppressed the fact that he wasearlier granted a tribe certificate dated 21.02.2009, which wasunder scrutiny before respondent No.2 Committee, however,before decision of its verification, the petitioner again obtainedanother tribe certificate dated 22.11.2021 and the same was alsosubmitted for verification.iii) She submitted that the the petitioner not disclosed inthe petition the order dated 26th September 2022 passed by thecommittee observing that the original residence of the *6* wp5299o24petitioner’s family members is Rudawali, Taluka Shirpur DistrictDhule, however, the caste certificate dated 21.02.2009 wasissued by the Sub-Divisional Office, Taloda, which was withoutterritorial jurisdiction.iv) The petitioner obtained another caste certificate dated24.02.2022 from the SDO Taloda, which was then referred to thescrutiny committee. The petitioner has challenged the order ofinvalidation of this certificate.v) She submitted that the petitioner has failed todisclose in the petition about the first order of the scrutinycommittee although it was not a decision on merits. Thepetitioner has not disclosed reasons for approaching thecompetent authority on second occasion for obtaining fresh tribecertificate, when the first certificate was under scrutiny.vi) She adverted our attention to various documentssubmitted by the petitioner showing discrepancies in the name ofthe grandfather of the petitioner, discrepancies in the genealogiessubmitted by the petitioner and also variance in the name ofnative place of the petitioner, which all demonstrated acts offalsehood and deceit on the part of the petitioner. *7* wp5299o24Advancing vehement submissions on the abovementioned issues, the learned AGP submitted that the petitionerhas played mischief with the Committee by submittingmanipulated documents and, therefore, he is not entitled to claimany relief, much less invoking writ jurisdiction of this court.8.We have considered the rival contentions andperused the papers. We have also perused the original record ofthe scrutiny committee in the matter of the petitioner which wasmade available by the scrutiny committee.9.In order to deal with the challenge and appreciatethe contentious issues, it is worthwhile to note certain importantaspects related to the facts of the present case. The petition doesnot narrate complete facts, which becomes clear on perusal of theoriginal record of the petitioner’s case:9.1 The petitioner had obtained tribe certificate dated 21February 2009, from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Taloda. Thistribe certificate was sent for verification before the committeeand the matter was pending. This fact is not clarified in thepetition. *8* wp5299o249.2 During pendency of the tribe claim, the petitionerhad obtained another tribe certificate dated 24 February 2022from the SDO, Taloda , which was also sent for scrutiny, which isfiled at Exhibit A to the petition. The impugned order is withrespect to invalidation of this tribe certificate.9.3 The first tribe certificate was also scrutinised by thecommittee and by order dated 20 September 2022, the committeerefused to decide the caste claim on account of issue of territorialjurisdiction, keeping the issue on merits undecided.9.4 On reference being made to the scrutiny committee,a vigilance cell enquiry was conducted and the report dated 25September 2023 was forwarded to the petitioner along withnotice dated 27 September 2023. The petitioner submitted hisreply dated 11.10.2023 and the matter was kept on 6 November2023.9.5 However, thereafter, another vigilance cell enquirywas conducted and the vigilance report dated 29 November 2023was forwarded to the petitioner along with show cause noticedated 04 December 2023. The petition does not mention anyreason or circumstance because of which the second vigilance *9* wp5299o24cell enquiry within two months was required to be conducted.9.6 The petitioner submitted his reply dated 27 February2024.9.7The record reveals that date was fixed as 6November 2023, which was fixed for further proceedings,however, prior to this date the matter was taken up on 13 October2023 and 18 October 2023.9.8 The committee has passed the final order on 18March 2024, which makes reference to both the vigilanceenquiry reports and even refers to the procedure initiated on thebasis of first tribe certificate dated 21 February 2009. Thecommittee has considered all the documents filed by thepetitioner in both the proceedings and the genealogies submittedby the petitioner in support of his tribe claim.10. It has to be noted that the committee has recordedspecific observations about interpolations in the documents ofthe year 1926 and 1941. It is pertinent to note that the firstvigilance cell enquiry report dated 25 September 2023, mentionsin paragraph 5, the details of interpolations in the documents. *10* wp5299o24Although the petitioner submitted his reply to this report, thereply does not deal with the specific issues of interpolations inthese documents. Even the second Vigilance cell enquiry reportrecords observations about interpolations in the documents of1926 and 1941, along with discrepancies in the place ofresidence of forefathers of the petitioners. Although the petitionerhas submitted reply dated 27 February 2024, however, the samedid not specifically deal with any of these issues, whichtherefore, remained uncontroverted.11. In order to deal with the issue of interpolation of therecord and legality of the findings of the committee, we haveperused the original record. The record reveals that the petitionerhas filed on record form number 14 of petitioner’s grandmotherMadhu Deepa Kashiram dated 23.11.1926 showing entry ofbirth. This document is extract of birth and death register of themonth of November and it shows total birth of three persons inthat month. It is pertinent to note that this page shows birth ofone male and one female at serial numbers 38 and 39, however,there is one more entry at serial number 40 of birth of one moremale and corresponding changes in total number of births as 2. *11* wp5299o24The entry at serial number 40 appears to have been made bydifferent ink and in different handwriting showing the name ofgrandfather and caste as ‘Dhor’. The interpolation of thisdocument becomes clear from overwriting of the number ofbirths as 2. The vigilance cell enquiry has observed thisinterpolation and accordingly, has compared the record from theTahasil office Taloda on the basis of report of the Tahasildar andcertified copies obtained from that office.11.1The petitioner has also relied upon anotherdocument of Village form number 14 dated 08.07.1941 aboutentry of birth of his paternal aunt Kala Mahadev Deepa. Thisdocument shows that the entry at serial number 42, hasoverwriting on the names of Madhu Deepa and mentions of casteas ‘Tokre Koli’, which creates suspicion about this document.The vigilance cell report records that the entry was verified onthe basis of report of the Tahasildar Taloda.11.2 As regards the document of School entry registerof the year 1950, which is submitted by the petitioner, showingname of his paternal uncle Buddha Madhu Bagul and caste as‘Hindu Tokre Koli’, the vigilance cell enquiry records that in *12* wp5299o24fact, the register was in a torned condition, and few pages onlyappeared to have been rewritten. It is observed that there isdiscrepancy in the names and the portion relied upon by thepetitioner appears to have been rewritten. Hence it is observedthat the document is suspicious in nature.11.3As regards, the document submitted by thepetitioner with respect to school record of his father, NarayanMadhav Kohli obtained from Zilla Parishad School Amlad, thevigilance cell report records that as against the entry at serialnumber 58 relied upon by the petitioner, there is name of someother person than that of the father of the petitioner. Thevigilance cell enquiry report records this observation on the basisof report obtained from the principal of the said school.11.4 Crucial to note, the interpolation of the documentsof the years 1926 and 1941 and about the other documents beingsuspicious were specifically mentioned in the vigilance cellreport and the same were confronted to the petitioner vide showcause notice dated 27.09.2023 which was served along withvigilance cell enquiry report. The explanation given by thepetitioner that record was not in the custody of the petitioner and, *13* wp5299o24therefore, there was no scope of interpolation, was not found tobe satisfactory. Pertinent to note all the issues were considered bythe committee and after objective scrutiny the committee hasrecorded findings about interpolation of documents. Even in thepetition, there is no explanation at all regarding these vital issues.12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed onrecord these documents along with the petition in a bunch of thedocuments, without contentions or explanations, despite of theallegations of interpolations and suspicious nature. Even duringthe course of arguments, the counsel for petitioner was not ableto submit any convincing and plausible explanation with respectto these interpolated and suspicious documents.13. In the light of the above mentioned vital issueswhich demonstrate the mischievous conduct of the petitioner wefind that the petitioner has not at all approached the court withclean hands. We are of the firm view that the petitioner hasindulged in deceitful means to manipulate the record forobtaining a validity certificate.14. Perusal of the impugned order shows that thecommittee has correctly appreciated the documentary evidence *14* wp5299o24relied upon by the petitioner.15.It has to be noted that apart from the abovementioned documents which are found to be unreliable, thepetitioner has not relied upon any other documents of pre-independence era to establish his caste claim for ‘Tokre Koli’,Scheduled Tribe. Further, when the petitioner was confrontedwith documents of his relatives showing other castes, whoserelations are stated in the vigilance cell report, he has straightwaydisowned those relations and denied his relationship with thosepersons with evasive replies. Even with respect to otherdocuments relied upon by the petitioner, the committee hasobserved that there is difference in the name of grandfather of thepetitioner as stated in the tribe certificate and the genealogyrelied upon by him. Even the genealogy submitted by thepetitioner contradicts the documents relied upon by him in hisclaim of the year 2009.16.The committee has also categorically observed thatthe petitioner has created confusion as regards place of residenceof his father and grandfather by stating at some places that theiroriginal place of residence was Rudawali Taluka Shirpur District *15* wp5299o24Dhule while it is stated at other places that the forefathersbelonged to Aamlad, taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar. Theimpugned order shows that the committee has given dueconsideration to the documentary evidence. The impugned orderis a reasoned one and passed after considering the relevantaspects.17. On giving due consideration to all the abovementioned aspects with respect to the petitioner’s conduct andthe documents relied upon him, particularly the interpolated andsuspicious documents, we are of the considered view that thepetitioner has played mischief and indulged in acts ofinterpolation and fabrication of documents. The documents ofpre-independence era relied upon by the petitioner are found tobe unreliable and suspicious as observed in the vigilance cellenquiry report. Despite sufficient opportunity, the petitioner hasnot submitted any explanation to these allegations ofinterpolations of documents.18. The petitioner was duty bound to discharge hisburden to prove the tribe claim. The recent pronouncement of theHonourable Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur *16* wp5299o24Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers, AIR 2023 SC 1657, reiterates the position of law aboutrole of the claimant and that of the Scrutiny Committee. Relevantparagraphs are reproduced below:“15. The law contemplates very detailed scrutiny ofthe caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. Ifboth the Competent Authority and the CasteScrutiny Committee were to make the samedegree of scrutiny and detailed enquiry intocaste claims, the very object of the two-tierscrutiny will be frustrated. Section 8 providesthat the burden of proving a caste claim beforethe Competent Authority and the ScrutinyCommittee is on the applicant. For dischargingthe said burden before the CompetentAuthority, it is enough if the applicant producesprima facie material to show that his casteclaim is genuine. The burden put by Section 8on the applicant to prove his caste status beforethe Scrutiny Committee is much higher than theburden which he is required to discharge beforethe Competent Authority.”“28.….. On a conjoint reading of the 2000 Act aswell as ST and SC Rules framed thereunder, itis impossible to conclude that the ScrutinyCommittee discharges only administrativefunctions. The Scrutiny Committee under the2000 Act has been entrusted with variouspowers of the Civil Court under the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908. The powers include apower to enforce the attendance of any witness,to receive evidence on affidavits, to issuecommissions for the examination of witnessesor documents etc. The scheme of the 2000 Actand both SC and ST Rules provides for the *17* wp5299o24Scrutiny Committee holding an enquiry on thecaste claim of the applicant, if necessary, afterexamining the applicant on oath, recordingevidence of witnesses and calling fordocuments and records etc. The ScrutinyCommittee is expected to record reasons forgranting and rejecting the prayer for issue ofcaste validity certificates. Thus, the ScrutinyCommittee has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial authority.” 19.Thus, it is clear that Section 8 of the MaharashtraAct no. 23 of 2001, casts burden to prove the caste claim on thecandidate, which has to be discharged by preponderance ofprobabilities. The candidate is required to discharge the burdenon the strength of documentary evidence and if necessary by wayof affinity test. The scrutiny committee being a quasi judicialauthority is required to decide the caste claim on the basis ofdocuments submitted by the candidate.20. In the instant case, the documents submitted by thepetitioner were found to be interpolated, fabricated, andsuspicious. The vigilance cell report records pertinentobservations about interpolations and suspicious nature of thedocuments. The scrutiny committee has passed the impugnedorder after considering the entire record of the petitioners case. *18* wp5299o24The findings recorded by the scrutiny committee are based onplausible appreciation of the record available before it and arenot found to be perverse. The impugned order doesn’t need anyinterference.21. In the wake of glaring instances of interpolations ofrecord as observed by the committee, which are uncontroverted,we are of the view that the acts of deceit and fraud are apparent.The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Itis apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt while dealing with the matter of caste claim, in Lillykuttyvs. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST and others, (2005) 8 SCC283. Although this was a case related to the provisions of theKerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation ofIssue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, the observations arepertinent, which are reproduced below:“23. The Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes in view of the constitutional provisionscontained in Articles 341 and 342 of theConstitution occupy a special position.Protective discrimination and affirmativeaction for the downtrodden people areenvisaged in our constitutional scheme despitethe fact that the equality clause enshrinedunder Article 14 of the Constitution is of great *19* wp5299o24significance. (See E.V. Chinnaiah v. State ofA.P.).”“24.When, thus, a person who is not amember of a Scheduled Caste or a ScheduledTribe obtains a false certificate with a view togain undue advantage to which he or she wasnot otherwise entitled to, would amount tocommission of fraud. Fraudulent acts are notencouraged by the courts. A person for thepurpose of obtaining the benefits of thePresidential Order must fulfil the condition ofbeing a member of the Scheduled Castes andcontinue to be so…..” 22.The Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter ofKishore Samrite v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC398, has tersely observed that a litigant should not be permittedto play mischief for seeking benefits from the Court and frownedupon the litigants abusing process of court. Relevant observationsof the Apex Court read thus:-“37.The person seeking equity must do equity.It is not just the clean hands, but alsoclean mind, clean heart and cleanobjective that are the equi-fundamentalsof judicious litigation. The legal maximjure naturae aequum est neminem cumalterius detrimento et injuria fierilocupletiorem, which means that it is alaw of nature that one should not beenriched by the loss or injury toanother, is the percept for Courts. *20* wp5299o24Wide jurisdiction of the court should notbecome a source of abuse of theprocess of law by the disgruntled litigant.Careful exercise is also necessary toensure that the litigation is genuine, notmotivated by extraneous considerationsand imposes an obligation upon thelitigant to disclose the true facts andapproach the court with clean hands.38.No litigant can play ‘hide and seek’ withthe courts or adopt ‘pick and choose’.True facts ought to be disclosed as theCourt knows law, but not facts. One,who does not come with candid factsand clean breast cannot hold a writ ofthe court with soiled hands.Suppression or concealment of materialfacts is impermissible to a litigant or evenas a technique of advocacy. In suchcases, the Court is duty bound todischarge rule nisi and such applicant isrequired to be dealt with for contempt ofcourt for abusing the process of thecourt. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authorityof India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481].39. Another settled canon of administrationof justice is that no litigant should bepermitted to misuse the judicial processby filing frivolous petitions. No litiganthas a right to unlimited drought upon thecourt time and public money in order toget his affairs settled in the manner ashe wishes. Easy access to justice shouldnot be used as a licence to filemisconceived and frivolous petitions.(Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K.Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530).40. In light of these settled principles, if weexamine the facts of the present case,next friends in both the petitions are *21* wp5299o24guilty of suppressing material facts,approaching the court with uncleanhands, filing petitions with ulteriormotive and finally for abusing the processof the court.”23.Expressing annoyance about frivolous litigationsand mischievous litigants, the Honourable Supreme Court, in thematter of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another vs. PradnyaPrakash Khadekar and others, (2017) 5 SCC 496, hasobserved in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:-"13.This Court must view with disfavour anyattempt by a litigant to abuse the process.The sanctity of the judicial process will beseriously eroded if such attempts are notdealt with firmly. A litigant who takesliberties with the truth or with theprocedures of the Court should be left inno doubt about the consequences tofollow. Others should not venture alongthe same path in the hope or on amisplaced expectation of judicial leniency.Exemplary costs are inevitable, and evennecessary, in order to ensure that inlitigation, as in the law which is practisedin our country, there is no premium onthe truth. 14. Courts across the legal system - this Courtnot being an exception – are choked withlitigation. Frivolous and groundless filingsconstitute a serious menace to theadministration of justice. They consumetime and clog the infrastructure.Productive resources which should bedeployed in the handling of genuinecauses are dissipated in attending to cases *22* wp5299o24filed only to benefit from delay, byprolonging dead issues and pursuingworthless causes. No litigant can have avested interest in delay. Unfortunately, asthe present case exemplifies, the processof dispensing justice is misused by theunscrupulous to the detriment of thelegitimate. The present case is anillustration of how a simple issue hasoccupied the time of the courts and ofhow successive applications have beenfiled to prolong the inevitable. The personin whose favour the balance of justice lieshas in the process been left in the lurchby repeated attempts to revive a staleissue. This tendency can be curbed only ifcourts across the system adopt aninstitutional approach which penalizessuch behavior. Liberal access to justicedoes not mean access to chaos andindiscipline. A strong message must beconveyed that courts of justice will not beallowed to be disrupted by litigativestrategies designed to profit from thedelays of the law. Unless remedial actionis taken by all courts here and now oursociety will breed a legal culture based onevasion instead of abidance. It is the dutyof every court to firmly deal with suchsituations. The imposition of exemplarycosts is a necessary instrument which hasto be deployed to weed out, as well as toprevent the filing of frivolous cases. It isonly then that the courts can set aparttime to resolve genuine causes andanswer the concerns of those who are inneed of justice. Imposition of real timecosts is also necessary to ensure thataccess to courts is available to citizenswith genuine grievances. Otherwise, thedoors would be shut to legitimate causessimply by the weight of undeserving caseswhich flood the system. Such a situation *23* wp5299o24cannot be allowed to come to pass. Henceit is not merely a matter of discretion buta duty and obligation cast upon all courtsto ensure that the legal system is notexploited by those who use the forms ofthe law to defeat or delay justice. Wecommend all courts to deal with frivolousfilings in the same manner." 24.In the backdrop of legal position enunciated in thejudgments referred to above, considering the conduct of thepetitioner, we find this to be a fit case in which the petitionerneeds to be saddled with appropriate costs for indulging indeceitful acts and misleading the authorities and the courts.25.In the light of above mentioned factual and legalaspects, we do not find any perversity in the reasoning of thescrutiny committee to warrant interference under writjurisdiction. We are of the firm view that the petitioner hasindulged in serious acts of manipulation and interpolation of thedocuments only to derive undue advantage. He has invoked writjurisdiction without approaching the court with clean hands. Heis not at all entitled for any relief warranting interference underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, much less any equitablerelief. The instant petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. *24* wp5299o2426.The Civil Application no. 6912/ 2024 for productionof documents is allowed.27.The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by the petitioner inthe registry of this court, within three weeks, else shall berecovered as arrears of land revenue.28.Rule is discharged. kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)