Caste validity certificates for Scheduled Tribes must consider familial ties; invalidation of relatives' certificates affects related claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Y.G. Khobragade, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. In both these Petitions, the Petitioners, who are siblings, pray for quashing and setting aside the order dater dated 30.05.2024, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat thereby invalidating “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe caste claim.

3. After considering the extensive submissions of the learned advocates, we have perused the Judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 21.08.2023 in Writ Petition No. 10305 of 2023 (Rohit s/o Gopalrao Shinde and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr.), wherein real cousins of both these Petitioners have been conditionally granted validity certificates as “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe. The operative order reads as under:

“(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The common judgment and order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside

(iii) The Scrutiny Committee shall shall issue tribe validity certificates of scheduled tribe “Thakar” in favour the petitioners forthwith which shall be subject to outcome of the reopened matters.

(iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.”

4. There is no dispute that both the Petitioners before us, namely Shambala Ashok Shinde and Mahesh Ashok Shinde, are real siblings. Both are real cousin sister and brother of Rohit Goapalrao Shinde, Aaditya Gopal Shinde and Somnath Ganpat Shinde, who are Petitioners in W.P. No.10305 of 2023 and by order dated 21.08.2023, conditional validity has been granted to them.

5. The Petitioners have placed on record genealogical tree, which shows that, Tukaram Shinde was having two sons namely Gyanoba Tukaram Shinde and Dhondiba Tukaram Shinde. Shri Gyanoba was having sons namely Chandar, Balbhim, Ashok and Balasheb. Shri Vyankat, Ganpat, Shankar and Gopal are biological children of Chandar Vitthal Shinde. Shri Somnath is son of Ganpat (Petitioner No.3 in W.P. No. 10305 of 2023). Rohit and Aaditya are sons of Gopalrao Shinde (the Petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P. No. 10305 of 2023) to whom the Coordinate Bench has already granted “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe Certificate. Shambala Ashok Shinde (in W.P. No. 7040/2024) and Mahesh Ashok Shinde (in W.P. No. 7041/2024) are siblings and biological sons of Shri Ashok s/o Vitthal Shinde. This aspect is undisputed.

6. The learned AGP canvassed that the Petitioners themselves produced affidavit of Shri Gopal Chandar Shinde, who has given genealogical tree stating that, one Shri Pund Shinde is shown as biological son of Dhondiba Tukaram Thakar but in genealogical tree his name is not shown. In Census of 1951 caste of the Petitioners forgathers is shown as “Maratha”. As per vigilance report, the Petitioners forefathers have not migrated from the area where people of “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe are residing. Therefore, the Petitioners failed to prove that they belong to “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that if this Court is inclined to accept the Writ Petition filed by Rohit s/o Gopalrao Shinde & others (W.P. No. 10305/2023), similar conditions be imposed on the said Petitioner.

7. Needless to say that the Census Report wherein the caste of the present Petitioners is described as “Maratha” is not a substantial proof to prove their caste. Though the learned AGP canvassed that one Shri Pund Shinde is shown as biological son of Dhondiba Tukaram Thakar but in genealogical tree his name is not shown, however, said contention not been raised by the Respondents before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 10305 of 2023 decided on 21.08.2023.

8. In case of Shweta Balaji Isankar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (W.P. No. 5611/2018 decided on 27.07.2018, 2018 SCC Online Bom. 10341, the Coordinate Bof his Court has held in paragraph nos. 2 to 4 and 8 as under:

"2. On the earlier occasion, we found that though the petitioner produced credible evide