IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Prakash S/o Shivram Nikumbh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13605 of 2019
Decided On : 19-01-2024
Caste Certificate - Scheduled Tribe - Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, Section 4, Section 5(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, emphasizing the jurisdiction and procedure to be followed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority. The court highlighted the requirement for the Competent Authority to issue a Caste Certificate after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim and the limitations of the Appellate Authority's enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought caste certificates under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of their applications by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The petitioners claimed to belong to the 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe based on supporting documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners could not support their caste claims as 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe, as the records indicated 'Malhar Koli' caste for the grandfather of petitioner no. 1 in the year 1922. The Scrutiny Committee exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by entering into unwarranted deeper inquiry, but even on prima facie consideration, the petitioners could not support their caste claims.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioners' applications for caste certificates, the jurisdiction and procedure of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority, and the interpretation of the evidence presented by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the Competent Authority to issue a Caste Certificate after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim and the limitations of the Appellate Authority's enquiry. It also highlighted the distinction between the adjudication of caste claim and the grant of caste certificate.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby assailing the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur rejecting the applications of the petitioners for issuance of caste certificates, so also the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee confirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer.
3. Mr. Paithane, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had submitted the proposal for issuance of caste certificates with respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur, who is the competent authority. The petitioners had submitted supporting documents like school leaving certificates, wherein caste is recorded as ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe, the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner no. 1 as belonging to the ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe dated 04.09.1980, the caste certificate issued by Tahsildar, Sindkheda in favour of Shivram Nimba Nikumbh i.e. father of petitioner no. 1 and the genealogy in the form of affidavit alongwith certificates issued by the Talathi and Sarpanch of village Shewade, Tq. Sindkheda. All these documents clearly depict the caste status of the petitioners as belonging to ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe. However, respondent no. 2 discarded the aforesaid evidence giving reason that the documents are of recent past i.e. issued 1970 onwards. Similarly, respondent no. 3 entered into deeper enquiry and by referring to some contra entries, refused to entertain the applications of the petitioners. The aggrieved petitioners had approached respondent no. 2-Committee in its appellate jurisdiction in terms of Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (for short ‘Act of 2001’) challenging order of respondent No. 3. However, respondent-Committee exceeded the appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 5(2) of the Act of 2001 and called for the report of Vigilance Officer alongwith certain documents and consequently rejected the Appeal relying upon report of Vigilance Officer and documents appended thereto.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners would place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Samadhan Suryakant Akoskar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2013 (4) Bom. C.R. 457 to contend that once the competent authority finds that the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his caste claim are genuine, the caste certificate needs to be issued without entering into deeper enquiry. The Committee in exercise of appellate powers cannot enter into area of verification of the claim, but will have to limit its enquiry to record prima facie conclusion as regards to the entitlement of the claimants to receive caste certificates. The jurisdiction of the Committee under Rule 8(2) of the Act of 2001 is different than the jurisdiction under Section 6(2) of the Act of 2001 for considering validity of the caste claim.
5. The learned AGP, however, supports the impugned order. He would submit that on consideration of the petitioner’s documents, they are not found entitled for issuance of the caste certificates as claimed. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have rightly rejected the proposal.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and also perused the documents tendered into service. The petitioner no. 1 and his daughters-petitioner nos. 2 and 3, approached respondent no. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur for issuance of caste certificates. They supported their claims by filing school leaving certificate of petitioner no. 1-Prakash, which records his caste as ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe on 14.07.1981, caste certificate of Shivram Nimba Nikumbh issued in the year 1980 by then Tahsildar alongwith genealo
Anand Dhananjay Nalawade vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Competent Authority to issue a Caste Certificate after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim, and the lim....
The authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in denying caste certificates, improperly evaluating the validity of caste claims contrary to statutory provisions.
The importance of older documents in establishing caste claim and the need to consider the broad perspective of caste claim genuineness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Scrutiny Committee had no statutory power to re-examine a Caste Validity Certificate already issued, and thus, the cancellation was withou....
The authority to verify Caste Certificates and the jurisdiction to cancel or issue fresh certificates lies with the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the Government Order dated 28.02.2011, unless obtain....
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.