High Court
Facts
1 901-WP-13622-24-j.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13622 OF 20241.Sainath s/o. Tukaram Gudpalle,Age 19 years, Occu. Student2.Dinesh s/o. Tukaram Gudpalle,Age 19 years, Occu. Student,R/o. Chapoli, Tq.Chakur, District Latur ..PetitionersVersus1.The State of MaharashtraDepartment of Tribal DevelopmentMantralaya, Mumbai – 32Through its Secretary2.The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Kinwat Office at ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar, Chhatrapati SambhajinagarThrough its Member Secretary .. RespondentsMr. Vivekanand U. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners;Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents CORAM : S. G. MEHARE & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 14-12-2024ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: SHAILESH P. BRAHME) :-1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sidesfinally at the admission stage with consent, as there is exigency tothe petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
7 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt16.We have gone through the revenue record of Sangappa andthe school entry of Shashikalabai. In respect of revenue entry ofSangappa, though there is no caste column, ‘Koli Mahadev’ ismentioned in the cultivation column. Similarly, in respect of birthextract, we find that the entry at Serial No. 114 refers the name of“Shashikala”, and father’s name, “Nivrutti”, against these names,caste ‘Koli Mahadev’ is mentioned. The birth extract furtherreveals that not only in respect of “Shashikala”, but caste ismentioned across other entries also. We find that these twoentries are corroborative and cannot be doubted, as contended bythe learned A.G.P.17.We are shown Rules 3(a) and 3(d) of the Rules, 2003 forchallenging the validity certificate of Balaji. In case of Balaji, twovalidity certificates of maternal side are on record. No doubt, rulescontemplate record validity on maternal and paternal side arereliable but merely because, relying on record of some of thematernal side relatives, Balaji is facing action of the committee,the validity cannot be discarded. It would be open to thecommittee, to arrive at a conclusion of any fraud in the matter ornot. We have already observed that unless Balaji’s validity isrecalled, the validity of petitioners cannot be deprived at thisjuncture. 8 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt18.The submissions regarding area restriction and affinity testare unsustainable. The area restriction is removed and in thatregard law is laid down in the case of – Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs.State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No.2336 of 2011,dated 08.03.2017.19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maharashtra Adiwasi ThakurJamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others,2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785, has laid down that the affinity test is not alitmus test to decide a caste claim. In the case in hand, there areother entries and, therefore, affinity test is inconsequential.20.For the above reasons, we are of the considered view thatthe impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. We find thatthe petitioners are entitled to receive validity certificateconditionally in view of the judgment of Shweta Balaji Isankar(supra). Hence, we pass the following order:-ORDER1.The writ petition is partly allowed.2.The impugned judgment and order passed by respondentNo.2/Scrutiny Committee, dated 10.12.2024, is quashed andset aside. 9 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt3.Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue the tribecertificate to the petitioners as belonging to “Koli Mahadev”scheduled tribe in prescribed proforma, forthwith. The sameshall be subject to outcome of reverification, as proposed byrespondent No.2.4.The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S. G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGErrd
Arguments
2 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt2.The petitioners are assailing the judgment and order passedby respondent No.2 - The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, dated 10.12.2024, invalidating the tribe certificate ofthe petitioners.3.The tribe claim is rejected by respondent No.2/committeediscarding the validity of Balaji Kashinath Gudpalle andconsidering the incompatible school record of Dnyanoba (1968),Bayanabai (1961) and Tukaram (1978). It has also been observedby respondent No.2/committee that the revenue record ofSangappa and birth record of Shashikalabai is doubtful.4.The petitioners are relying on the validity of Balaji KashinathGudpalle, school entries of Tukaram of 1978 and Balaji of 1961.Besides that, the revenue record of Sangappa of 1952 and birthrecord of Shashikalabai of 1958, are also pressed into service tosupport the tribe claim.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Balajiwas issued the validity certificate by following due procedure oflaw. Unless the same is revoked, the petitioners cannot be deniedthe validity. He further submits that there was no proper vigilanceconducted in respect of record of Sangappa and Shashikalabai,and reply to the inquiry conducted by the vigilance committee wasalso not considered. 3 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt6.It is further submitted that after verifying the record in thecase of Balaji, the validity certificate was issued. The petitionersare relying on selfsame record and additional record of Sangappaand Shashikalabai, which would corroborate the tribe claim. It issubmitted that the report of the Headmaster in respect of theschool entry of Shashikalabai was not the part of the vigilancereport and, therefore, the same cannot be relied. He submits thatthe petitioners are ready to face the consequences ascontemplated in the judgment of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5611 of 2018,and hence, they are entitled to receive conditional validities.7.The learned A.G.P. supports impugned judgment and order.He tenders on record the original papers of the petitioners andearlier validity holder - Balaji. He submits that Balaji was issuedwith validity certificate by the committee headed by Mr. V. S. Patiland the conduct of Mr. V. S. Patil was already noticed on variousoccasions. Banking on the school record of Kashinath of 1952, thevalidity was issued, which turned out to be bogus in the presentmatter, in pursuance of the report of the Headmaster. He submitsthat the validity certificate of Balaji is rightly discarded by thecommittee as per Rules 3(a) and 3(d) of the MaharashtraScheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification ofCertificate) Rules, 2003 (for short, “Rules, 2003”). 4 901-WP-13622-24-j.odt8.In case of Balaji, the committee has rightly observed that thereliance was placed on the validity certificate of Koli GaneshBhanudas and Gaganbone Santosh Venkatrao, who were maternalside relatives.9.The learned A.G.P. submits that the additional evidence inthe nature of revenue record of Sangappa and birth record ofShashikala is not reliable. There is no column of caste in therevenue record and the birth record is doubtful. It is submittedthat in the birth extract, two names of Shashikala are figuring atSerial Nos.111 and 114. Besides that, in the genealogy, thepetitioners have not shown Shashikala to be a daughter of Nivrutti.Therefore, the entry of Shashikala is doubtful. He further submitsthat it would be a fraud on the part of the petitioners to rely uponthe old entry of Kashinath of 1952, Sangappa and Shashikala.When the documentary evidence is doubtful, the affinity test,needs to be relied upon. The finding regarding the area restriction,is also against the petitioners, which is the relevant consideration.He submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed as a plausibleand reasonable view has been taken by the committee.10.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties andgone through the relevant record.11.There is no dispute in the relationship of the petitioners withthe validity holder - Balaji. In case of Balaji, the vigilance inquiry 5 901-WP-13622-24-j.odtwas conducted by the earlier committee and by a reasoned order,he was issued validity certificate by considering the school recordof various paternal side relatives including his father Kashinath. Itis a fact that the validity certificate of maternal side relatives werealso considered, but there were other material also on record.Apparently, the validity certificate of Balaji was issued afterfollowing due procedure of law. The committee has already issueda show cause notice for reverification of his validity. Unless anduntil the caste validity granted to the blood relatives is recalled byfollowing due procedure of law, at this juncture, the petitionerscannot be deprived of the validity certificate. 12.The learned A.G.P. pressed into services the report of theHeadmaster dated 07.11.2024 in respect of the school entry ofKashinath. There is no reference of the report of the Headmaster inthe vigilance report and no doubt was expressed in respect of theschool entry of Kashinath. When the committee wanted to use thereport in respect of any entry, that should have been disclosed tothe petitioners in vigilance report, so that the petitioners’ claim toget an opportunity to deal with the adverse remarks.13.The learned A.G.P. relies on judgment in the case of Saurabhs/o. Shivanna Goskulwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others,Writ Petition No.9173 of 2019, dated 01.10.2024, to buttress thatthe first validity certificate is tainted with bogus record and the 6 901-WP-13622-24-j.odtrecord was procured to usurp caste benefits. He relies onobservations of paragraph Nos.11 to 13 in the matter of SaurabhGoskulwar (supra).14.In the matter of Sourabh (supra), reliance was placed onPrachi. The order of the scrutiny committee in the case of Prachishows that vigilance cell found out school record of Shivayya Nanaof 22.06.1927 and Bankanna Shivayya of 28.06.1935 and a reportwas called for. It was reported by the vigilance officer vide letterdated 16.05.2008 that the above record was genuine. Precisely,being impressed by the pre-independence record having greaterprobative value, the Committee issued validity certificate toPrachi. During the vigilance, it was found that both entries werebogus.15.In the present matter, no pre-constitutional entry has beenrelied on by the petitioners. Only entry of Kashinath of 1952, wasgone into by the vigilance officer and found to be bogus. We havealready recorded the report of Headmaster was not served uponthe petitioners or it was not incorporated in the vigilance report.Therefore, merely because, there is some report in respect ofKashinath, the same would not operate against the petitioners.We are of the considered view that the judgment cited by thelearned A.G.P., is of little assistance to the respondents.