Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R. D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare, JJ.
Latabai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2022
Decided On : 10-06-2022
WRIT - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - VALIDITY OF CASTE CLAIM - [MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES, DE-NOTIFIED TRIBES (VIMUKTA JATIS) NOMADIC TRIBES, OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES AND SPECIAL BACKWARD CATEGORY (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF) CASTE CERTIFICATE) ACT, 2000] - [MAHARASHTRA SCHEDULED TRIBE (REGULATION OF ISSUANCE AND VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE) RULES, 2003] - Scrutiny Committee invalidated petitioner's claim of "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe - Petitioner challenged the order - Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that she belongs to the "Tokre Koli" tribe caste - Dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. Her caste certificate was forwarded to the Committee for validation. Meantime, she contested the election for Legislative Assembly from the Chopda constituency and was elected. She then resigned from the post of the Corporator. However, her caste claim, registered after her proposal for validation after her election as Corporator, was pending. In the said case, respondent No.2 had called a Villigence Report. She was called upon to submit her explanation to the said report. However, instead of replying to the said report, she insisted on deciding on her application for withdrawal of the proposal. Since she did not file her reply, the Scrutiny Committee / respondent No. 2 invalidated her claim by order dated 04.11.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner failed to prove that she belongs to the "Tokre Koli" tribe caste. The impugned judgment delivered by the respondent No.2 is well reasoned order. There is no perversity in the finding rendered by the respondent No.2.
Issues: Whether the petitioner belongs to the "Tokre Koli" tribe caste.
Ratio Decidendi: The entries of the pre-indepedence era, if rebutted, cannot be given probative value. The presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act would also not help the petitioner for the reason that the strong evidence in rebuttal was available.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.G. Mehare, J. - Rule. Learned Government Pleader waives service of notice for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal waives service of notice for respondents Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Gunale, the learned Counsel, waives service of notice for respondent No.5.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties heard finally.
3. The petitioner is elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. She takes exception to the judgment and order passed by respondent No.2 (Committee) dated 09.02.2022 invalidating her claim of "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe.
4. The facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are that the petitioner was elected Corporator for Jalgaon Municipal Corporation on the Scheduled Tribe reserved seat. Her caste certificate was forwarded to the Committee for validation. Meantime, she contested the election for Legislative Assembly from the Chopda constituency and was elected. She then resigned from the post of the Corporator. However, her caste claim, registered after her proposal for validation after her election as Corporator, was pending. In the said case, respondent No.2 had called a Villigence Report. She was called upon to submit her explanation to the said report. However, instead of replying to the said report, she insisted on deciding on her application for withdrawal of the proposal. Since she did not file her reply, the Scrutiny Committee / respondent No. 2 invalidated her claim by order dated 04.11.2020.
5. The petitioner impugned the said judgment and order in Writ Petition No.7721/2020. By order dated 03.12.2020, in Writ Petition No.7721/2020, this Court directed the petitioner to resubmit the tribe certificate issued by the competent Authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner, before the Committee within seven days and further directed to decide the validation proceedings of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7721 of 2020 was challenged by respondent No.3 before the Honourable Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15997 of 2020.
6. The petitioner had also filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8632 of 2021 against the same order. However, in the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No.3909 of 2021, praying for transfer of the validation proceedings from the Nandurbar Committee to any other Committee. The said petition was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed against the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7721 of 2020 was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on 07.12.2021 with a direction to the respondent No.2-Committee to decide the proceedings within four (4) months from the date of the order.
7. Respondent No.3/the objector, filed an objection on the caste claimed by her before the Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No.3 had filed Writ Petition No.14645 of 2019 before this Court seeking a direction to decide the tribe claim at the earliest.
8. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. 7721 of 2020, the petitioner presented her fresh application for caste validation on 09.12.2020. Respondent No.2 perused the caste proposal and decided to call for a Vigilance Report. The Vigilance Cell filed 1068 pages report on 19.05.2021. After taking every chance to prolong the say to the said Vigilance Report, the petitioner finally submitted her explanation to the said report on 20.08.2021.
9. Respondent No.3 filed Contempt Petition No.346 of 2021, alleging non-compliance of the directions issued in Writ Petitiono.7721 of 2020. This Court, on the statement of A.G.P., issued directions to expedite the proceedings. In the said contempt proceedings, the petitioner was not a party. Hence, she filed another Writ Petitiono.9228 of 2021 for recalling the order dated 05.08.2021. This Court also disposed of the said petition on 15.09.2021. Fina
The court emphasized that documentary evidence, especially pre-independence records, is crucial in establishing caste claims, and the failure to produce valid documentation invalidates the claim.
The importance of pre-independence documents in caste validity claims and the scrutiny committee's duty to properly appreciate evidence and documents.
Pre-constitutional entries carry greater probative value for establishing caste claims than post-constitutional entries, and the Committee's findings of interpolation lacked sufficient evidence.
The probative value of pre-constitutional documents showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors, the requirement for the Scrutiny Committee to record brief reasons before referring a case ....
Caste Certificate – Invalidation of - Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing link of applicant with a Scheduled – Tribe.
The petitioner failed to prove his claim to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, as older documents indicating 'Mani' had greater probative value, and he tampered with evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and detailed vigilance inquiry to ascertain the validity of a caste claim, emphasizing the importance of providing co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
