Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S.Chandurkar, V.V.Joshi, JJ.
Deoram Vithoba Nandanwar - Appellant
Versus
Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutin Committee - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4481 of 2021
Decided On : 13-07-2023
R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate, A.S.Fulzele, Advocate, S.M.Puranik, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that historical caste records and genealogical evidence are critical in validating caste claims, and that the scrutiny committee must consider these factors rather than solely relying on later conflicting entries.
Headnote:
Caste Validity - Scheduled Tribe Claim - Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000; Supreme Court Judgments - The court discussed the evidential value of genealogical records and the importance of historical caste entries in determining caste claims. It emphasized that the caste of the petitioners' grandfather as 'Halba' should be accepted despite conflicting entries for the father. The court highlighted that the scrutiny committee's approach was unjust and did not adequately consider the historical context and legal precedents regarding caste claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating their caste certificate as 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. They provided historical records showing their grandfather was recorded as 'Halba' in 1917, while later entries for their father indicated 'Koshti'. The petitioners argued that the committee ignored crucial evidence supporting their claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scrutiny committee's decision was unjust and not supported by adequate examination of historical records. It ruled that the petitioners had sufficiently proven their claim to belong to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe based on genealogical evidence and historical entries.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could be classified as 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe despite conflicting caste entries for their father and the scrutiny committee's reliance on those entries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ancestral caste recorded in historical documents should take precedence over later conflicting entries. It emphasized the importance of considering the socio-cultural context and the evidential value of genealogical records in determining caste claims.
Final Decision: The court set aside the scrutiny committee's order invalidating the petitioners' caste claim and declared that they belong to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe, directing the committee to issue a validity certificate within four weeks.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J. - Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The order dtd. 17/8/2021 issued by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioners of 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners are recorded as 'Halba' (Koshti) in the Primary School leaving certificate dtd. 6/5/1974 subsequently, the correction in the caste as 'Halba' (Koshti) to 'Halba' is made by the prevailing Rules of School Code and allowed by Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara vide letter dtd. 12/11/1981. The School Leaving Certificate also mentions the caste of the petitioners,as 'Halba'. The petitioners brother Madhukar is also issued caste certificate of 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe on 24/4/1989. The grandfather of the petitioner Pundlik Pandurang is recorded as 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe on 17/3/1917 in School admission register of Chinteshwar Marathi Primary School, which is N.M.C School. The entry in the Dakhal Kharij Register of grandfather of the petitioners Pundlik Pandurang, entry No.4434 recording his caste as 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.
4. The father of the petitioners Vithoba Pundlik since his family was actually doing the job of weaving, in the school admission entry under the column of occupation, the father of Vithoba is shown as 'Koshti'. The petitioners have also obtained original Dakhal Kharij Register format entry. The records as regards the children of Pundlik i.e. Vithoba, Ganpat and Ghanshyam in respect of their occupation is 'Koshti' and the same is reflected because of mistaken writing in the school records. The petitioners have stated that n respect of ancestral Pundlik grandfather shows that they are 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.
5. One Mr. Bhagwat Ghanshyam Wagh who maintains panji (Palm leaf inscription-Tadpatra) and called as Panjikar, who is professional genealogist has systematically maintained pedigree tables in the community of 'Halbas'. The Hon'ble Aplex Court in the case of Sitaji and others Vs.Birendra Narain Chauhan and others reported in AIR 1954 SCC, 609 has upheld the evidential value as per 32(2),32(6) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of such palm leaf inscription and genealogy. With the leaf manuscript, in which it is clearly mentioned that Kolhu, who is ancestor and is recorded as Halba. Kolhu has son Balu, Balu has son Wasudeo, Wasudeo has son Pandurang and Pandurang has son Pundlik and they are all Halbas.
6. The caste certificate of the petitioners are referred by respondent No.2 as per Government Resolution dated, 18/5/2013 to the respondent No.1 Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur. On 25/7/2013 the respondent no.1 Committee referred the caste certificates of the petitioners to the Police Vigilance Cell for enquiry. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted the enquiry and submitted it's report. As it is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case, the petitioners submitted their details and exhaustive reply to the Police Vigilance Cell. The respondent No.1 Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee decided the caste claim of the petitioners on 17/8/2021 and invalidated the caste claim of both the petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners grandfather Pundlik Pandurang is recorded as Halba on 17/3/1917. The admission Dakhal Kharaj register is observed to be doubtful and ignored which is clearly illegal, unsustainable in law.
8. Respondent No.1 has filed reply and opposed the writ petition stating that during the enquiry, Vigilance Cell has obtained school and revenue records in which the caste of the petitioners blood relatives has been found recorded as 'Koshti'. The father of the petitioners and uncle cousin brothers, cousin uncle, caste has been recorded as Koshti during the years 1943 to 1964 that is prior to post proclamation of Presidential Notification period the caste is found 'Koshti'. Therefo
