JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---In this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to 'Bawa' tribe which is notified as Nomadic Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division Bombay, the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

2. Initially this writ petition was placed for hearing before the Division Bench. But in view of an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court and a contention raised that the decision in (Vijay Shrichand Daulatani's v. State of Maharashtra ors.)1, 1985(2) Bombay Cases Reporter, 488, requires reconsideration, the matter came to be referred to a larger Bench. This is how this petition came to be placed before this Full Bench.

3. On the basis of the arguments advanced before the Division Bench as well as before us, the following questions arise for our consideration :

a) Whether 'Bawa' from Sindh can claim the benefit of entry Gosayi of its synonyms as included in the list of Nomadic Tribe vide Government Resolution dated 21st November, 1961 as amended from time to time.

b) Whether the Government Resolution dated 1st April, 1987 which directs that Sindhi Community is not covered by the said entry, is illegal as by the said resolutation Government has sought the decision of this Court in Vijay Daulatani's case ?

c) What should be the nature of evidence to be adduced before the Scrutiny Committee for establishing the fact that a particular person belongs to Nomadic Tribe ?

d) Whether it is necessary to establish mutual affinity amongst the tribal communities specified in the schedule ?

4. It was contended by Shri Gursahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Bawa Nomadic Tribe, which was originally recognised as Other Backward Class in Sindh, West Pakistan. Prior to the partition of India, Sindh was part of the then Bombay presidency. After partition members of the Sindhi Community migrated to India. They migrated with their traditions and castes and, therefore, it will not be correct to say that Bawas from Sindh have socially or ethnically nothing in common with the community of Gosavi or Bawa notified by the Government of Maharashtra as Nomadic Tribe. In Vijay Daulatani's case the Division Bench of this Court has rightly came to the conclusion that even after migration the caste remained unchanged and, therefore, Bawas from Sindh were entitled to the benefits meant for the Nomadic Tribes.

5. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Advocate General that reservations qua Other Backward Classes or Vimukta Jati and Nomadic Tribes are provided under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. When in 1928, the then Government of Bombay appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Starte to enquire into the educational, economic and social conditions of depressed classes, 'Sindh' was excluded from the purview of the said Committee. The said Committee had submitted its report to the Government in 1930. Further from the Government resolutions issued from time to time it is clear that whenever the Government wanted to include any caste or tribe from Sindh, a specific mention has been made in that behalf. The Bawa caste from Sindh is not any way socially or ethnically connected with the Communities known as Bawas, Bairagis or Gosavis from Maharashtra. Therefore, Bawa caste from Sindh was never included in the list of Nomadic Tribes as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. It is also contended by him that the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Daulatani's case did not consider various aspects of the matter and erred in coming to the conclusion that Bawas from Sindh are also included in the schedule relating to the Nomadic Tribe.

6. In support of their rival contentions learned Counsel have placed strong reliance upon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document