IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
A.S. CHANDURKAR, URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, JJ.
Sumit S/o Gajendra Bawane – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1722 of 2018
Decided On : 23-06-2022
TRIBE CLAIM - Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Act of 2000 and its requirement for conducting an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. It referred to the judgment in Amruta Vijay More Vs. State of Maharashtra and Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, highlighting the importance of prior adjudication and the acceptance of caste/tribe claim based on the procedure prevailing prior to the Act of 2000, unless fraud or misrepresentation was proven. The court emphasized that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in re-opening the proceedings without allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, and ordered the issuance of a validity certificate to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's claim of belonging to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, despite prior adjudication in favor of the petitioner's father and uncles. The petitioner sought relief from the court, arguing that the earlier adjudication should have been given due weightage and that the impugned order was unjustified due to the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prior adjudication of the petitioner's father and uncles belonging to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, conducted before the Act of 2000, should have been considered and given due weightage. It held that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in re-opening the proceedings without allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, and ordered the issuance of a validity certificate to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Scrutiny Committee's invalidation of the petitioner's tribe claim was justified, considering the prior adjudication and absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that prior adjudication of tribe claims, conducted before the Act of 2000, should be given due weightage and accepted unless fraud or misrepresentation was proven. It emphasized that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in re-opening the proceedings without allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee, declared the petitioner's belonging to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, and ordered the issuance of a validity certificate to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner’s claim of belonging to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
3. Shri N.C. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father was issued a validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee on 30.08.1995. Earlier, an appeal filed by the petitioner’s uncle - Vijay Chaintaman Bawane was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on 03.06.1987 and the caste certificate isued by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur dated 22.12.1981 indicating the fact that said uncle was belonging to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe was upheld. Yet another uncle - Dilip Chintaman Bawane had filed Writ Petition No. 2032 of 1983 challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as the original order passed by the Director of Social Welfare invalidating such claim. By the judgment dated 19.04.1993 this Court had allowed the said writ petition and after setting aside the orders impugned therein, it was declared that the petitioner’s uncle belonged to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. Though these orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as this Court alongwith the validity certificate issued to the petitioner’s father were placed before the Scrutiny Committee, the same were not accepted by the Scrutiny Committee while considering the petitioner’s tribe claim. By holding that the aforesaid adjudication was not accompanied by any enquiry by the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to independently examine the petitioner’s tribe claim and thereafter invalidate the same. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amruta Vijay More Vs. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2011 and SLP (C) No. 29364 of 2010 decided on 23.08.2011, it was submitted that if the earlier adjudication had been undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed prior to coming into force of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act of 2000’) due weightage was required to be given to such adjudication. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 900 had also held that unless a case of fraud and/or misrepresentation had been made out, the orders invalidating the caste/tribe claim based upon the procedure prevailing prior to the enactment of the Act of 2000 ought to be accepted. As a result of the impugned order, the petitioner had been deprived of the benefit which his father and uncles had been enjoying. It was thus submitted that there being no allegation of fraud and/or misrepresentation attributed to the petitioner while seeking adjudication of his tribe claim, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
4. Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. She submitted that it was an admitted position that while upholding the claim of the petitioner’s father and uncles, the Scrutiny Committee did not have the advantage of the report of the Vigilance Cell. In absence of there being any such enquiry the Scrutiny Committee in the present case was justified in conducting such enquiry and thereafter passing the impugned order based on such enquiry. The Act of 2000 required conducting of such enquiry and therefore the petitioner could not raise a grievance in that regard. Referring to the order dated 15.04.2016 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 102 of 2013 [Narayan Dinbaji Jambule and Others Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and Others]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.