High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 11694 / 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 11694 OF 2024Rohit Vishwanath ThakurAge : 19 years, Occu : Education,R/o. Presently residing atTambepura Ganesh Colony,Amalner District – Dhule.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 322] Joint Commissioner cum Vice Chairman Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. M.R. WaghAGP for the respondent – State : Mr. V.M. Kagne... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 21 OCTOBER 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard both sides finally at the stage of admission. 2.The petitioner is challenging the order of respondent no. 2- scrutiny committee constituted under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of2001, whereby it has refused to validate his ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribecertificate. 2 WP / 11694 / 2024 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that inspite of enormous material in the form of school record of several bloodrelatives, wherein they have been described in the caste column as‘Thakur’, the committee has wrongly discarded it on the basis ofsurmises and conjectures. It has illegally applied the area restriction inspite of its removal by the Amendment Act of 1976. Only based oncouple of contrary entries of the year 1970 and one entry whereininference has been drawn about manipulation, the concrete favourableevidence has been discarded. The committee has treated ‘Hindu’ entryin the caste column of the school record, as a contrary entry which itcould not have legally done. The appreciation of the evidence by thecommittee is clearly faulty and perverse. 4. Learned advocate would further submits that the petitionerhas been relying upon the validity of his cousin grandfather - GirdharPandu Shinde who was issued with certificate of validity on 15-02-2005. It was issued by following due process of law. No sound andcogent reasons have been assigned by the committee for refusing toextend validity of Girdhar even when it was not doubting the bloodrelationship between him and the petitioner. 5. Lastly, learned advocate would submit that the committeehas also erroneously applied affinity test when the documents were in 3 WP / 11694 / 2024 abundance and favouring the petitioner’s claim, in addition to thecertificate of validity of Girdhar.6. Learned AGP would submit that no fault can be found withthe reasoning assigned by the committee to demonstrate as to how thepetitioner’s family does not belong to ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe albeit theschool record in the caste column mentions the petitioner and his bloodrelatives as ‘Thakur’. It is a community from affluent category. Advantage is being taken due to similarity in the nomenclature of‘Thakur’ who are considered affluent, with ‘Thakur’ who are actuallytribals related to a specific area of the State of Maharashtra fallingwithin the districts of Pune, Ahmednagar, Nashik, Thane, Palghar andRaigad. Similarly, no fault can be found with the observation of thecommittee that in the rest of the districts from the state, there has neverbeen any reported residence of ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe. Learned AGPwould also submit that the committee has assigned reasons as to how,over a period of time, with the removal of area restriction, advantage isbeing taken by several such families who do not belong to ‘Thakur’scheduled tribe. There is enormous exposition in the number ofpersons claiming to be ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe in many districts of thestate wherein earlier no such family was reported to be belonging tothat tribe. 4 WP / 11694 / 2024 7. Learned AGP would further advert our attention to the factthat the genealogy furnished by the petitioner’s mother on oath beforethe committee (Exhibit - H) does not tally with the genealogy ofGirdhar and even if the committee has not entertained any doubt, itbeing a matter of grant of social status, this incompatibility in thegenealogies is quite evident and cannot be overlooked. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers including the additional affidavit tendered across the bar bythe learned advocate for the petitioner which is taken on record andmarked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. 9. True it is that the committee has not entertained any doubtas regards petitioner being related to the validity holder - Girdhar,however, admittedly, Girdhar had not filed any affidavit to substantiatepetitioner’s claim as contemplated under rule 11 of the Rules of 2003framed under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. 10. The petitioner’s mother in her affidavit has given followinggenealogy (Page 36 – Exhibit – H) : 5 WP / 11694 / 2024 As compared to this, in the matter of Girdhar, who happens to be thevalidity holder, the genealogy given was like this : GenealogyAnandaPanduDagaduVitthalBalkrushnaBhamajiFakiraGirdharRamdasPravinSuvarnaNitinVishalVaibhavHarshalDurgaNishaNarayanVishwanathShubhamRohit (Petitioner) RajendraSahebraoHimmatPratapAnandraoGenealogyHanvanta ShindeAnandaPanduDagaduVitthalBalkrushnaFakiraGirdharPravinNitinVishalVaibhavRajendraSahebraoHimmatPratapAnandraoNitinSachinPrashant(V. Holder)SunitaKavita 6 WP / 11694 / 2024 11. The discrepancy is evident. The second genealogy doesnot show that Pandu Ananda Shinde was having three sons. It onlyshows that he was having only two sons Fakira and Girdhar. Petitionerclaims to be the great grandchildren of Bhamaji who has been shownto be third son of Pandu in the genealogy furnished on oath bypetitioner’s mother. Apart therefrom, we could notice from the revenuerecord in the form of 7/12 extract in respect of land gat number 92 thatit is only Fakirrao and Girdhar who have inherited the land equally. Ifreally Bhamaji was their real brother, even he could havesimultaneously inherited the land along with Fakirrao and Girdharand each one would have then got 1/3rd share. 12. In the light of such discrepancy in the genealogies there issufficient reason for us to doubt the genealogy relied upon by thepetitioner on the basis of such revenue record. Learned advocate forthe petitioner on the last date had sought time and has today tenderedthe additional affidavit together with affidavits of Pravin Fakirrao Shindeand Nitin Fakirrao Shinde who have now given the followinggenealogy: 7 WP / 11694 / 2024 It is evident from the genealogy being furnished by these twoindividuals that unlike what has been mentioned by petitioner’s mother,Bhimaji who is the great grandfather of the petitioner, is now shown tobe one of the four sons of Ananda and, the real brother of Pandu whowas the father of validity holder - Girdhar and Fakirrao.13. Obviously, these two affidavits corroborate the petitioner’sclaim of being related to Girdhar by blood, however, in the light ofincompatibility in the affidavits furnished by petitioner’s mother andthese subsequent affidavits filed today, in our considered view, it wouldbe appropriate for the committee now to embark upon a threadbarescrutiny of the petitioner’s claim of being related to Girdhar PanduShinde by blood from paternal side. Irrespective of the stand of theBalukrushnGenealogyHanumanAnandaVitthalDeubaSahebraoHimmatPratapAnandraoBhimaji (Bhima)RamdasNatthuShobhabaiMangalbaiSulochanaNarayanVishwanathMinaLaxmiJanabaiRohitVishal (V.Holder)Vaibhav(V.Holder)Kavita(V.Holder)PravinNitinUshaSuvarnaGirdhar PanduFakirrao PanduSakharamTotaramPanduDevchandraRamchandra
Decision
8 WP / 11694 / 2024 committee about Girdhar having practised fraud and its decision toundertake re-scrutiny of his validity, till the time it is not recalled,petitioner would be entitled to derive its benefit if he is able todemonstrate that he is related to Girdhar by blood, as is required byMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326.14. We do not intend to cause any prejudice to the petitioneralbeit when such exercise of re-scrutiny of his claim takes place toascertain his blood relationship with Girdhar. 15. The writ petition is allowed partly.16. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matteris remanded back to the committee for decision afresh. 17. The petitioner shall appear before the committee on23-10-2024 and the committee shall thereafter extend him anopportunity to lead additional evidence and shall decide the proposalafresh on its own merits and if necessary, by undertaking additionalvigilance enquiry, specifically to ascertain if the petitioner is related toGirdhar by blood from the paternal side. 9 WP / 11694 / 2024 18. The committee shall decide the petitioner’s proposal finallywithin three (3) weeks from the date of his appearance. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/