✦ High Court of India

Writ Petition No. 11489 of 2023 · Bombay High Court

Case Details

2024:BHC-AUG:257-DB 1 wp_11489.23 final.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 WRIT PETITION NO.11489 OF 2023 Dakshata Sanjay Shirsath age 18 yrs, Occ. Student, R/o Kalyani Residential Home, Plot No.93, Nizar Road, Nandurbar. VERSUS 1. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Principle Secretary Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Extension Building, Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai 400032. 2. The Committee for Verification of Scheduled Tribe Claims, Dhule, Shivam Colony, Vidhya Vihar Colony, Dhule, Mahindale, Maharashtra. Petitioner .Respondents ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Kulkarni AGP for Respondents : Mr. N.S. Tekale ...

Legal Reasoning

CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. Dated :January 05, 2024 ORDER :- (Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) 1. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.8.2023 passed by the Respondent no.2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule thereby rejecting the 2 wp_11489.23 final.odt caste claim of the petitioner for “Tokre Koli”. The petitioner is a student. Her caste claim was referred to respondent no.2- Committee for verification. The Committee by impugned deci- sion rejected claim of the petitioner with further directions for initiating the action in terms of section 10 and 11 of the Act of 2000 and to initiate action against father of the petitioner in terms of Section 199, 200 and 193 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the pe-

Decision

titioner would submit that the impugned order is unjust, arbi- trary and illegal. The petitioner has supported her claim by fil- ing the caste validity certificate of paternal blood relative namely Aarti Vijaysing Sirsath issued by the Committee. How- ever, the committee recorded erroneous finding while discard- ing relationship of the petitioner with the validity holder. He would submit that the petitioner had also filed an affidavit of Bhimsing Ambarsing Shirsath containing genealogy which de- picts that Vijaysing and Bhimsing are cousin grand fathers of the petitioner. There was no reason to discard the genealogy and consequential claim for validation of caste certificate. 3. Per contra, Mr. Tekale, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 vehemently submits that although the petitioner placed reliance on caste validity certificate of Aarti vijaysing Shirsath, evidence on record do not support her con- tention regarding blood relationship with Validity holder. He would point out that genealogy relied in the caste claim of Aarti donot support relationship of the petitioner with her. The 3 wp_11489.23 final.odt Committee has, therefore, rightly observed that validity holder is not blood relative of the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced, it appears that the petitioner’s claim is mainly based on validity granted in favour of Aarti Vijaysing Shirsath. The petitioner claims that she is blood relative from paternal side. The peti- tioner has produced an affidavit of Bhimsing Ambarsing Shir- sath containing genealogy, which reads as thus :- oa’kkoGh @ oa’ko`{k jk;yk dksGh ¼f’kjlkB½ ¼[kkij i.ktksck½ eghir nsokth vacjflax f’kjlkB ¼i.ktksck½ oath ¼vacjflax ;kaps pwyr HkkŽ ¼i.ktksck½ fHkeflax ¼vktksck½ fot;flax ¼vktksck½ rqacMw ¼vktksck½ eatkckbZ ¼vkR;k½ feyhan ¼dkdk½ u;u ¼dkdk½ vkjrh ¼vkR;k½ egs’k ¼dkdk½ lat; ¼oMhy½ UkkukHkkÅ ¼dkdk½ n{krk ¼vtZnkj½ fu[khy ¼vtZnkj½ vfouk’k ¼vtZnkj½ jekdkar ¼vtZnkj½ 5. According to the petitioner, Bhimsing Ambarsing Shirsath and Vijaysing Ambarsing Shirsath are cousin grandfa- 4 wp_11489.23 final.odt thers of the petitioner, whereas, Aarti d/o Vijaysing Shirsath has been granted validity certificate by the Committee. The petitioner’s case was referred to Vigilance Cell and report was solicited. Eventually, Vigilance report dated 19.7.2023 has been received to the Committee. During inquiry, Vigilance offi- cer collected the documents pertaining to blood relations of the petitioner. The petitioner has also given an affidavit containing genealogy. The observations of Vigilance Cell do not throw light regarding relationship of the petitioner with validity holder i.e. Aarti Vijaysing Shirsath. Copy of affidavit tendered by Bhimsing Ambarsing Shirsath who is real uncle of Aarti was also made available to the Vigilance Cell, however no adverse comments as regards to the genuineness of genealogy finds place in report. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Committee procured genealogy from file of validity holder wherein branch of Devji Rayla Shirsath is missing. Pertinently, Bhimsing who is real uncle of validity holder has given affi- davit accepting his relationship with the petitioner. However, the Committee relying upon genealogy in the file of Aarti drawn the inference to observe thet petitioner failed to estab- lish her relationship with Aarti Vijaysing Shirsath. Apparently, record do not indicate that genealogy relied in the caste claim of Aarti was put to the petitioner or he was given opportunity explain ambiguity. Even Committee could have called upon Bhimsing, i.e. real uncle of validity holder to explain the afore- said ambiguity. 5 wp_11489.23 final.odt 7. Pertinently, during course of the arguments, it is not disputed before us that validity certificate granted in favour of Aarti as genuine and has been isuued in tune with the provisions of Act of 2000 and Rules framed thereunde. The committee appears to have raised doubt regarding relationship of the petitioner with the Aarti while delivering judgment by the Committee. The petitioner had no occasion to explain so- called inconsistency in the genealogy relied by the petitioner and found in file of validity holder. Perusal of the record and proceeding before committee indicates that even Vigilance Cell has not made any adverse comment as regards genealogy. However, if the Committee had any such doubt, it was open to cause inquiry through Vigilance Cell and call a specific report regarding relationship of the petitioner with validity holder. Apparently, Committee without following the aforesaid proce- dure recorded adverse finding on it’s own accord without offer- ing opportunity to the petitioner to put his stand. 8. In that view of the matter, we are of the consid- ered opinion that the Committee failed in procedural error while dealing with the claim of the petitioner and consequently rejected his caste claim. In this backdrop, we find that interest of the justice would sub-serve if the matter is relegated back to the Committee and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to es- tablish her blood relationship with the validity holder. Even, the Committee would be at liberty to call appropriate report from the Vigilance Cell on this specific point and decide the claim afresh. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds. Hence, following order. 6 wp_11489.23 final.odt O R D E R i. Writ Petition is partly allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 18.8.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 Committee in File No.14/198/EDU/122022/15449 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2-Committee with direction to grant an op- portunity to the petitioner to establish his rela- tionship with the validity holder i.e. Aarti Vi- jaysing Shirsath, so also lead any further evi- dence in support of caste claim. iv. The Committee shall be at liberty to refer the matter to Vigilance Cell for specific inquiry as regards to the relationship of the petitioner with the validity holder i.e. Aarti Vijaysing Shirsath. v. On receipt of the report of the Vigilance Cell, the committee shall be furnish copy thereof to petitioner and give him an opportunity to offer his comments on the report. vi. The Committee shall complete the aforesaid ex- ercise as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of six (06) months from the date of this order. 7 wp_11489.23 final.odt vii. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. ( S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) ... aaa/-

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments