High Court
Facts
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.4368 OF 2020WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.12309 OF 2023IN WP/4368/2020Niklesh s/o Shivram ZinjurdeAge: 23 years, Occu.: EducationR/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad. .. PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee Aurangabad,Through its Dy. Director (R),Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.3.The Principal,Raje Shahaji Junior College,(Art, Science and Commerce),Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents…ANDWRIT PETITION NO.4369 OF 2020WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.12308 OF 2023 IN WP/4369/2020Yogesh s/o Sanjay ZinjurdeAge: 21 years, Occu.: Education,R/o. Toki, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad.. Petitioner[1] wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee Aurangabad,Through its Dy. Director (R),Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.3.The Principal,Raje Shahaji Junior College,(Art, Science and Commerce),Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents…ANDWRIT PETITION NO.5988 OF 2020WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.12310 OF 2023IN WP/5988/2020Ritik s/o Shivram ZinjurdeAge: 19 years, Occu.: Education,R/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad.. PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee Aurangabad,Through its Dy. Director (R),Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.[2]
Legal Reasoning
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtinsertion would have been made. The document itself was not before thecommittee. Same is the case as regards school record of relative ZinjurdeAnkush Baburao, Zinjurde Sanjay Bandu and Zinjurde Raju Laxman.Therefore, we are of the opinion that unless the record itself is not beforethe committee or clear photocopy as if it was the original (in which theclear distinction between the change in the handwriting and the ink isvisible), is before the committee or it was so perused personally by theVigilance Cell Officer, these documents could not have been discarded bythe committee, when those documents were in favour of the petitioner. 8.As regards the show cause notice is concerned, it appears that thecopy of the report is given and it is vaguely stated that there are contraentries. Further, in respect of genealogy is concerned, we agree to thesubmissions that people generally give a limited genealogy on which theywant to rely. They may not give the complete genealogy. A person unlesshas knowledge about the names of the ancestors will not give thegenealogy, but when he has the knowledge, then he ought to have given it,but for some mistaken fact he has not given the complete genealogy andthat does not mean that there was no relationship. Therefore, anopportunity ought to have been given by the committee to the petitionersto explain the genealogy, which was drawn by the Vigilance Cell.9.We are of the opinion that the matters need remand as proper[6]
Arguments
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt3.The Principal,Raje Shahaji Junior College,(Art, Science and Commerce),Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents…Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioners in all the writ petitions.Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for respondents – State in all the writ petitions.Mr. S. N. Lale Yelwatkar, Advocate for applicants in all the civil applications.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.DATE : JANUARY 10, 2024.JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :- .Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates forthe appearing parties finally by consent.2.By these petitions, the petitioners, who are the relatives i.e. two ofthem are real brothers and another is cousin, are seeking quashment of theimpugned judgment and order invalidating their caste claim.3.The petitioners claim that they belong to ‘Koli Mahadev’, which aScheduled Tribe. After their proposals for validation were referred torespondent No.2 Committee, the Vigilance Cell has conducted inquiry andafter the report was received, it is stated that respondent No.2 – Committeehad issued show cause notice to the petitioners on 05.08.2019 along with[3] wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtthe copy of said report to file their say. The say was given. Thereafter, thecommon judgment and order has been passed.4.The petitioners contend that at the time of filing verificationproposals by Yogesh and Ritik, inadvertently they have not given detailedgenealogy, but the detailed genealogy of the family of the petitioners wasgiven in the vigilance inquiry. It is the contention of the petitioners thatthey could not get a proper opportunity to explain the contra entries and,in fact, there was no interpolations in the documents, which they relied.Learned Advocate for the petitioners contend that the oldest document wasthe Khasra Pahani Patrak of the year 1954-1955 and in the judgment,respondent No.2 Committee has unnecessarily concluded that ‘KoliMahadev’ word has been inserted later on. He prayed for remand, thoughit has not been specifically prayed in the petitions so that the petitionerscan get a proper opportunity to explain the alleged contra entries. 5.Learned AGP has strongly opposed and submitted that a detailedinquiry has been conducted. Proper opportunity was given to thepetitioners by issuing show cause notice to file reply in respect of the reportsubmitted by the Vigilance Cell and after hearing the learned Advocate forthe petitioners, the order has been passed. Reasons have been given.Under the said circumstance, there is no question of giving any moreopportunity. [4] wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odt6.We had considered the record and proceedings, which was madeavailable by the respondents. The photocopy of the Khasra Pahani Patrakin fact does not appear to be in different ink or handwriting. The entry atSerial No.26 relied by the present petitioners is in respect of RangulalShankar. If the committee was of the opinion that it is in differenthandwriting, then the original ought to have been called. Mere reliance onthe Vigilance Cell report in that respect will not be proper. Further, itappears that the Vigilance Cell Officer has not recorded the statement ofthe revenue officer/clerk, who is the custodian of said Khasra PahaniPatrak. In order to arrive at a conclusion that a particular entry is indifferent handwriting and ink, only that page need not be considered. Fewpages from the said Khasra Pahani Patrak should have been perused.7.It appears that the Vigilance Officer has collected school record ofvarious relatives of the petitioners. What was disturbing is that thedocuments themselves were not collected, but certificate or opinion of theheadmaster on a chart has been taken. One of the old entry in respect ofadmission to the school of paternal aunt of the petitioners is dated19.07.1976 and that of uncle is dated 27.07.1978. The headmaster himselfis certifying that the entry in respect of caste is in different handwriting andink. When he is supposed to be the custodian of the document, such remarkwas not sufficient. He will have to explain as to when that change or[5]
Decision
wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtopportunity was not given. All the writ petitions deserves to be partlyallowed. Hence, the following order :-ORDERI)All the Writ Petitions stand partly allowed.II)The impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2019 passedby respondent No.2 Committee, invalidating the Tribe Claim ofpetitioners of ‘Koli Mahadev’, stands quashed and set aside. Theirmatters are remanded before respondent No.2 Committee. III)Respondent No.2 Committee to give an opportunity to thepetitioners to explain the contra entries and also to call thephotocopies of the registers in respect of which it is observed by theCommittee that there is insertion of caste under different ink andhandwriting. Even in that report, opportunity of being heard shouldbe given to the petitioners. IV)Liberty is given to the petitioners to place on record any otherdocuments on which they want to rely, which may also be gotverified by the Committee. V)Thereafter respondent No.2 Committee to proceed to decidethe matter as per the law. [7] wp-4368-2020, 4369-2020, 5988-2020 with ca's.odtVI)In view of the fact that the matter pertains to students, weexpedite the inquiry. The inquiry should be completed within twomonths from today and the decision be given by the Committeewithin one month upon the conclusion of inquiry. VII)Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.VIII)Rule is made absolute in the above terms.[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[8]