Laxmi v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Ors.

Judgment

(Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallywith the consent of the parties.2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner challenges the order dated 04.12.2023, passed J-wp7333.24 final.odt 2/10 by Respondent No.1, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Amravati (hereinafter “the Committee”) invalidatingher tribe claim towards “Gond” Scheduled Tribe, recognized at Sr.No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, on thegrounds of documentary evidence, affinity, and area restriction.3.The petitioner was issued a caste certificate dated25.05.2005 by the Competent Authority. She forwarded herproposal for caste verification along with the documents givenbelow pertaining to herself and her paternal side blood relatives.SrNoDocument typeNameRelationDateCaste1Hakka NondExtract(RevenueRecord)YashwantGrandfather1911-2012Gond2Birth EntryIsramGanpatGreatGrandfather01.04.1929Gond3Birth EntrySon ofGanpatGreatGrandfather’s son1932Gond4.The Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted on30.10.2014 and the report was submitted on 12.01.2015, whereinthe statement of the petitioner’s brother was recorded for testingaffinity.

The petitioner submitted her reply on 06.02.2015. TheCommittee vide impugned order dated 04.12.2023 invalidated thetribe claim on the grounds that: (i) documents do not establish

J-wp7333.24 final.odt 3/10 Gond Scheduled Tribe identity; (ii) petitioner failed the affinity test;and (iii) area restriction operates against the claim.5.It is pertinent to note that Committee initially issued avalidity certificate dated 05.08.2011 after considering documents,area, and affinity. The rspondent No.2 challenged the same in WritPetition No.3287/2012, which was dismissed on 23.07.2012.Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal No.164/2013 was filed anddecided on 02.08.2013, whereby the validity order was set asideand the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Theimpugned order has been passed in pursuance of the said remand.6.We have heard Ms. Preeti Rane, learned counsel for thepetitioner, Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleaderfor respondent No. 1, and Mr. A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel forrespondent No. 2.7.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpre-Constitutional entries of 1911–12, 1929, and 1932 consistentlyrecord caste as “Gond” and conclusively establish tribal identity.The adverse “Koli” entry procured by the vigilance officer is notapplicable, as the person reflected therein does not correspond tothe petitioner’s family tree.8. It is further submitted that the impugned order relieson documents and entries never forming part of the vigilance J-wp7333.24 final.odt 4/10 report, making it contrary to record. The Committee also failed toconsider the previously issued validity certificate and other oldestdocuments, which ought to have been given due weightage. Thepresent order, being diametrically contrary to the earlier validityorder of 05.08.2011 passed after considering documents, area, andaffinity, and having been passed under Rule 12(2) of the Ruleswithout any change in circumstances, is liable to be set aside.9.It is further submitted that the petitioner and herfamily members satisfactorily answered the entire affinityquestionnaire. The Committee, however, ignored the said repliesand by adopting a hyper-technical approach of repeated andlayered questioning arrived at an erroneous conclusion on affinity,which is liable to be deprecated. Where pre-Constitutionaldocuments establish “Gond” caste entry, the affinity test cannot beapplied in isolation as a litmus test, documents and affinity must beread conjointly, and rejection on affinity alone is wholly illegal and perverse. Reliance is placed on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241; Anand v.Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1SCC 113; and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785.10.Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for J-wp7333.24 final.odt 5/10 respondent No.1 supported the impugned order. It is submittedthat the petitioner was duly heard and that the vigilance enquiryprocured the following adverse documents :SrNoNature ofDocumentNameCasteRecordedYearRelation1Birth ExtractChild born toGanpatMahaduKoli09.02.1932GreatGrandfather2Dhakhal KharijRegister ExtractVasudevYashvantKoli31.07.1970Real Uncle J-wp7333.24 final.odt 6/10 3Dhakhal KharijRegister ExtractLaxmi D/oSahadevJadhavGondHindu31.07.1997Self4Dhakhal KharijRegister ExtractHanumanSahadevJadhavGondHindu09.07.1997Brother5Dhakhal KharijRegister ExtractShrikrushnaSahadevJadhavGondHindu16.07.2007 Brother11. It is submitted that these entries establish that thepetitioner belongs to the Koli/SBC community and cannot claimbenefits of Gond Scheduled Tribe on the basis of synonymousnomenclature, in view of Milind Katware Vs. State of Maharashtra,(2001) 1 SCC 41 and Civil Appeal No.4096/2020 & Others. Thepetitioner also failed to establish socio-cultural affinity with GondScheduled Tribe. Reliance is placed on Pramod s/o MadhukarMukunde (Writ Petition No.1709/2018), Gopal Kisan Dhone (WritPetition No.1744/2018), Sushma Gopal Dhone (Writ PetitionNo.1745/2018), Aarti s/o Kishor Bhonde (Writ PetitionNo.4130/2023), Rajesh Keshvrao Ingle (Writ PetitionNo.2540/2022), and Sunil Nilkanthrao Tapre (Writ PetitionNo.990/2018).12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed writtensubmissions supporting the impugned order. It is submitted thatafter an investigation spanning 10 years, the Committee found that J-wp7333.24 final.odt 7/10 the Koli community had perpetrated a systematic fraud byfabricating village records and appropriating tribal documents ofthe Gond community whose members had vacated village“Dudham” on account of the Nirguna Project. The HomeDepartment officials upon personal visit to village “Dudham” foundthat Gond tribal surnames are Atram, Sidam, Pendam, and Uike,whereas Koli community surnames are Jadhav, Kolhe, Gawali, andIngle – the petitioner bearing surname Jadhav thus belonging to theKoli community. Documents filed by the petitioner reveal casteeither as “Koli” or “Gond Hindu” with no consistency, and nospecific challenge has been raised to these findings; the petition isaccordingly devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.13.We have considered the contentions canvassed by thelearned counsel for the respective parties. We have also gonethrough the record of the matter with their assistance. Admittedly,the petitioner has sought a validity certificate that he belongs to“Gond” Scheduled Tribe. The oldest document filed in support ofhis caste claim was a birth extract of a son born to Ganpat valdMahadu Gond. The document is of dated 01.04.1929. Similarly,an extract of record of rights of one Yashwant Ganpat Gond wasfiled, which also shows caste as “Gond”. While discussing thesedocuments and discarding the same the Scrutiny Committee has J-wp7333.24 final.odt 8/10 recorded a finding that even though in the said documents the casteis mentioned as Gond, however, it doesn't mention that it belongsto “Gond Scheduled Tribe”. Further reason for rejecting anddiscarding the said oldest documents is that in school and revenuerecords, the caste of forefathers has to be found as “Koli” or “GondHindu”. Both these reasons, in our view, are unsustainable in law.The Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that the oldestdocuments have more probative value in view of the judgment ofthis Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Apoorva d/o.Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,reported in 2010 SCC Online Bom 1053. Thus, the order regardingthose old documents is unsustainable in law.14.Furthermore, only because the petitioner has filed adocument of one Ganpat Mahadu showing the caste as “Koli”,which dates back to 1932, cannot be a reason to discard the claimof the petitioner if otherwise on the basis of documents older to thesaid documents i.e. of 1911-12 and 1929, his caste as “Gond” isclearly seen. Thus, the reasoning for discarding the claim is totallyunsustainable.15.The petitioner had respectfully submitted in her replyto vigilance cell report that Wasudeo Yashwanta never went toschool and there is possibility that his case as Koli might have been J-wp7333.24 final.odt 9/10 mentioned by ignorance by a neighbour. This explanation is not atall considered by the Committee.16.As far as the affinity test is concerned, as is settled inthe judgment of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Mana AdimJamat Mandal, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 98, the said affinity testcannot be a sole pointer when otherwise the petitioner can proveindependently his caste claim. For these major reasons, the order isunsustainable in law and, therefore, cannot withstand the scrutinyof law. We, therefore, pass the following order :O R D E R(i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 04.12.2024 passed by therespondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee Amravati is quashed and setaside.(iii) The respondent No.1 Scheduled Tribe CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is directed to issue castevalidity certificate to the petitioner certifying her as belonging to“Gond” Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from thedate of receipt of certified copy of this order. (iv) The Writ Petition is disposed of. J-wp7333.24 final.odt 10/10(v) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orderas to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)Later on :After the pronouncement of judgment, A.J. Thakare, thelearned Counsel for the respondent No.2, seeks stay to the effectand operation of the impugned judgment for a period of eightweeks. This request is vehemently opposed by the learned Counselfor the petitioner, since according to her, the rights have beencrystallized. However, looking at the fact of the commencement ofsummer vacations, we stay the effect and operation of thisjudgment for a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Itis, however, made clear that the stay granted would automaticallyvacate after the period of four weeks as mentioned hereinabove. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)wadode