High Court
Facts
1 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.4551 OF 2011Dhananjay Amrut Sonawane,age 48 yrs, Occ. Service,R/o Javkhedesim, Post Nipane,Tq. Erandol, Dist JalgaonPetitioner Versus1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar Through it’sMember Secretary.2.Collector, JalgaonDistrict Jalgaon.3.Sub Divisional Officer,Amalner, Tq. Amalner,Dist. Jalgaon.4.The Taluka Magistrate (Tahsildar),Jalgoan, Dist. Jalgaon.Respondents… WITHWRIT PETITION NO.4553 OF 2011WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10488 OF 2019 IN WP NO.4553 OF 2011Neha d/o Liladhar Sonawane,age 18 yrs, Occ. Education,R/o Khedi (Bhokri), Tq. Chopda,Dist Jalgaonat present R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar,New Sangvi, Pune-27.Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
7 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtapplicant has established that the person towhom the validity certificate relied upon by himhas been issued is his blood relative. For thatpurpose, the applicant must establish his preciseand exact relationship with the person to whomthe validity certificate has been granted.Moreover, an inquiry will have to be made bythe Scrutiny Committee whether the validitycertificate has been granted to the blood relativeof the applicant by the concerned ScrutinyCommittee after holding due inquiry andfollowing due procedure. Therefore, if theScrutiny Committee has issued a validitycertificate contemplated in terms of the decisionin the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (1994) 6SCC 241, the examination will be whether theinquiry contemplated by the said decision hasbeen held. If the certificate relied upon is issuedafter coming into force of the 2000 Act, theScrutiny Committee will have to ascertainwhether the concerned Scrutiny Committee hadfollowed the procedure laid down therein aswell as in the ST Rules or the SC Rules, as thecase may be. For this verification, the ScrutinyCommittee can exercise powers conferred on itby Section 9(d) by requisitioning the record ofthe concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, whichhas issued the validity certificate to the bloodrelative of the applicant. If the record has beendestroyed, the Scrutiny Committee can ascertainwhether a due inquiry has been held on thebasis of the decision of the Caste ScrutinyCommittee by which caste validity has beengranted to the blood relative of the applicant. Ifit is established that the validity certificate hasbeen granted without holding a proper inquiryor without recording reasons, obviously, thecaste scrutiny committee cannot validate thecaste certificate only on the basis of such validitycertificate of the blood relative.”7.Applying aforesaid principles of law when weexamine the original file in respect of validity holder i.e. HinaVijay Sonawane, we find that the validity certificate has been 8 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtissued by the Competent Committee established under theprovisions of Act of 2000. Similarly, report of Vigilance Cellwas procured. The Committee relied upon the validity grantedin favour of distant relative namely Sahebrao Chuna Patil(Sonawane) as well as Jagdish Shamrao Sonawane.Pertinently, claim of Jagdish Shamrao Sonawane has beenupheld by order of this Court in Writ Petition No.1704 of 1993,Committee had also referred applicant Hina to affinity test. Itcan be seen that the contra entry in respect of school record ofAmrut Budha Sonawane i.e. grand father of Hina and VijayAmrut Sonawane i.e. father of Hina records caste as “HinduKoli”. It was before committee during the said inquiry. TheCommittee after considering the positive and contra evidenceissued validity certificate to Hina .8.Perusal of the observations of the Committee inpresent case shows that validity granted to Hina was discardedfrom consideration since it was granted based on validitiesgranted prior to 1994 i.e. before the judgment of the SupremeCourt in case of Madhuri Patil. In our opinion, suchobservations of the Committee cannot be sustained. TheHon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Apoorva d/o VinayNichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committeeno.1 and others (supra) specifically observed in paragraphno.7 thus :- “7. We thus come to the conclusion that whenduring the course of inquiry the candidatesubmits a caste validity certificate grantedearlier certifying that a blood relation of thecandidate belongs to the same caste as thatclaimed by the applicant, the committee maygrant such certificate without calling for
Arguments
2 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt Versus1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar Through it’sMember Secretary.2.Sub Divisional Officer,Amalner, Tq. Amalner,Dist. Jalgaon.3.Maharashtra Institute of Technology(Engineering College)Kothrud, Pune 38,Through its Principal.Respondents…WITHWRIT PETITION NO.4554 OF 2011Nivedita d/o Liladhar Sonawane,age 24 yrs, Occ. Education,R/o Khedi (Bhokri), Tq. Chopda,Dist Jalgaonat present R/o Swami Vivekanand Nagar,New Sangvi, Pune-27.Petitioner Versus1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar Through it’sMember Secretary.2.Sub Divisional Officer,Amalner, Tq. Amalner,Dist. Jalgaon.3.Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe PatilCollege of Engineering,Vilad Gat, P.O. MIDC,Ahmednagar – 414 111.Through it’s Principal.Respondents… 3 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odt...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondents : Mr. P.S. Patil... CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.Reserved on :January 18, 2024Pronounced on:February 02, 2024...COMMON JUDGMENT :- (Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally with consent of the parties.2.The petitioners have approached this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India impugning a commonorder dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Scheduled Tribe ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar, thereby invalidating tribe claim of thepetitioners as belonging to “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe.3.Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, learned advocate appearingfor the petitioners would submit that petitioners are belongingto “Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe” and Competent Authorityissued caste certificates to that effect. Proposal of thepetitioners for verification of Tribe claim were forwarded torespondent no.1-Committee. The Committee caused vigilanceinquiry as well as affinity test. The petitioners were servedreport of vigilance cell with show cause notice which was dulyreplied. The petitioners supported their claim by voluminousevidence in the form of validity certificates granted in favour of 4 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtblood relations conferring the tribe status as “Tokre Koli”.However, the Committee, on erroneous count, invalidated casteclaim of the petitioners. Mr. Deshmukh would invite attentionof this Court towards validity certificates issued in favour ofHina Vijay Sonawane dated 16.10.2006, Sanjay AmrutSonwane dated 28.3.2008, Sumit Jagdish Sonwane dated5.2.2007, Amit Jagdish Sonwane dated 25.1.2007, SwatiJagdish Sonawane dated 15.1.2007 as well as Genealogydepicting relationship with validity holders to contend thatmany close relations of the petitioners are already conferredwith validity of Tribe claim as belonging to “Tokre Koli”. Allthose validity certificates are intact and never being subjectedto any proceeding like recall or revocation. The Committeebased on some contra entries like “Koli” or “Hindu Koli” in therecord of some blood relations of the petitioners proceeded toinvalidate claim of the petitioners dehors established legalposition.4.Mr. Deshmukh would invite attention of this Courtto the reasoning adopted by the Committee and submit that nospecific finding is arrived that the caste validity conferred uponblood relations of the petitioners was product of fraud,misrepresentation or intentional suppression of material facts.On the other hand, he would point out that all contra entrieswere before the Committee when the validity is conferred uponHina, Swati, Amit, Sumit and Sanjay, who are blood relativesof the petitioners form the paternal side. To buttress hiscontentions, Mr. Deshmukh would rely upon the observationsof Supreme Court in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. 5 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtDivisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee no.1 andothers reported in [2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401] to contend that inabsence of findings of the Committee that caste validity reliedupon by the petitioners are either fraudulent or lacks necessaryprocedure; the Committee could not have ignored the same.He would submit that mere non-disclosure of any contra entrywould not constitute fraud to discard the validity conferred onblood relations.5.Per contra, Mr. P. S. Patil, learned AGP appearingfor the respondents would submit that the Committee hasrelied upon many contra entries which were suppressed by thevalidity holders while prosecuting their caste claim before theCommittee. He would invite attention of this Court to theChart referred in the Vigilance Cell report. Particularly, entryin the name of Shamrao Budho Koli dated 9.9.1940 and AmrutBudho Koli dated 23.6.1941 indicating that the father ofpetitioner Dhananjay and grand father of petitioner Neha andNivedita were shown to be belonging to ‘Hindu Koli’ at thetime of admission in the school in the year 1940 and 1941respectively. Many entries of post independent period (Era) inrelation to blood relatives are indicative of the caste as HinduSuryawanshi Koli. He would therefore submit that earliervalidity in favour of blood relations of petitioner does notassume significance while appreciating their claim. Mr. Patil,in support of his contentions, relies on the observations of theSupreme Court of India in case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs.Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others reported in [(2008) 9SCC 54] and Pournima Suryakant Pawar Versus State of 6 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtMaharashtra reported in (2013) 3 SCC 690 and MaharashtraAdivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State ofMaharashtra reported in 2023 (2) Mh.L.J. 785.6.We have considered the submissions advanced bythe learned advocates appearing for respective parties. Wehave perused original record of the proceeding before theCommittee. The learned AGP made available record in respectof the validity holders whose certificates are relied upon by thepetitioners. Pertinently, petitioners have supported their claimby the validities conferred upon many blood relatives. Allthose validities are issued during the period from 2006 to2008. None of the validity certificate is subjected to review orrevocation till this date. There is no dispute about therelationship of the petitioners with the validity holdersparticularly of Hina Vijay Sonawane, Sanjay Amrut Sonwane,Sumit Jagdish Sonwane, Amit Jagdish Sonwane and SwatiJagdish Sonawane. The Supreme Court of India in the Case ofMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others in Civil Appeal No.2502 of2022 (supra) observed in paragraph no.22 thus :-“22. We can also contemplate one more scenariowhich is found in many cases. These are thecases where the applicant relies upon castevalidity certificates issued to his blood relatives.Obviously, such a validity certificate has to beissued either by the Scrutiny Committeeconstituted in terms of the directions issued inKumari Madhuri Patil's case (1994) 6 SCC 241or constituted under the Rules framed under the2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the ScrutinyCommittee must ascertain whether thecertificate is genuine. Secondly, the ScrutinyCommittee will have to decide whether the
Decision
9 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odtVigilance Cell Report. However, if thecommittee finds that the earlier caste certificateis tainted by fraud or is granted withoutjurisdiction, the Committee may refuse tofollow and may refuse to grant certificate tothe applicant before it.” 9.Applying aforesaid principles of law, unless it isobserved by committee that the caste validity of blood relativerelied upon by the claimants was product of fraud ormisrepresentation or outcome of procedural defect, couldn'thave been discarded from consideration. When we balancevalidity already granted in favour of blood relations of thepetitioners with so-called contra entries which were relied bythe Committee, in case of petitioners, we hold that the validityrelied by petitioners ought to have been given due credence. Inthe present case, the petitioners have relied upon more than sixvalidity certificates granted to the close blood relations whichare intact till this date. Although, learned AGP relying uponthe observations of the Supreme Court of India in the case ofRaju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar andothers reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54 (supra)submitted that when earlier validity certificate is grantedignoring vital evidences, the Committee can arrive at differentconclusion, we do not find that such observations of theSupreme Court of India has any application in the facts of thepresent case. As we have noted that even contra entries reliedupon by the Committee in the present case were before theCommittee while granting validity in favour of Hina and otherblood relatives and committee after considering such contraevidence issued validity to Hina. Therefore, now it is not openfor the Committee to take different stand than what has been 10 WP 4551.2011 +2 wps.odttaken in case of Hina in the year 2006. Resultantly, we findthat the Committee committed patent illegality whileinvalidating the caste claim of the petitioners. Hence, weproceed to pass the following order.O R D E R i.Writ Petition nos.4551 of 2011, Writ PetitionNo.4553 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.4554 of 2011are hereby allowed.ii.The common order passed by the respondent no.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar dated 28th March,2011 is hereby quashed and set aside.iii.Respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar shallissue caste validity certificates in favour of thepetitioners for “Tokre Koli” Scheduled Tribe within aperiod of one (1) month.iv.Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Rule ismade absolute in above terms.v.Pending civil application/s, if any, also standsdisposed off.( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )...aaa/- F.