The probative value of pre-Constitutional documents is superior to subsequent documents, establishing the distinction between 'Halba' and 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribes.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay J. Mantri, J.

(1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel, appearing for the parties.

(2) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17/09/2019 passed by respondent No.1, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short ‘the Committee’), thereby rejecting her claim that she belongs to “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, has preferred this petition.

(3) It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to the “Halba”, Scheduled Tribe, which is a notified scheduled tribe. The Sub- Divisional Officer of Achalpur had issued a Tribe certificate in her favour. The petitioner for pursuing her education in respondent No.2 College of Engineering has produced her Tribe certificate along with relevant documents for its verification. However, her tribe claim was rejected by the then respondent No.1 Committee vide its order dated 15/07/2017. She challenged the said order before this Court in Writ Petition No.5471/2017. This Court, vide order dated 24/09/2018, quashed and set aside the order of invalidation of her claim and remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 Committee for its fresh consideration as per law by protecting her admission in respondent No.2 College.

(4) The respondent No.1 Committee, pursuant to the order dated 24/09/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.5471/2017, forwarded the petitioner's proposal to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The Vigilance Cell thoroughly inquired into the matter and submitted its report to the Committee on 11/09/2019, observing that some adverse entries, i.e. “Sali, Bunkar, Koshti and Halbi”, had been found against the tribe claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 Committee issued a show-cause notice dated 11/09/2019 to the petitioner, calling upon her to explain the adverse entries and the observations made in the Vigilance Cell report. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.1 Committee and submitted her explanation to the said notice. While replying to the notice, she categorically stated that she has no relation with Baliram, as her grandfather, as shown in document Sr.No.5 dated 09/01/1920. Therefore, she categorically denied the same. After considering the Vigilance Cell report, explanation of the petitioner and documents on record, the respondent No.1 Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner.

(5) Mr.Mohan Sudame, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.Ashwin Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the petitioner, in support of her tribe claim, has produced in all 09 documents, out of which 03 documents are of the pre- Constitutional era from 26/04/1920 to September 1921 pertaining to her great-great-grandfather and cousin grandfather, wherein their caste has been recorded as “Halbi”, those documents are oldest one.However, the respondent No.1 Committee has not considered those oldest entries in its proper perspective, gave undue weightage to the subsequent documents and erred in discarding the tribe claim of the petitioner.

(6) He further canvassed that as per the order dated 03/08/2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4574/2003, the respondent No.1 Committee has granted a validity certificate in favour of her father Mohan Nagorao Nadge on 30/08/2004. The said validity certificate has not been cancelled till this date. Therefore, based on the said validity certificate and in view of the mandate laid down in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Committee, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the petitioner is also entitled to get the validity certificate.

(7) He further drew our attention to the document dated 09/01/1920, which pertains to one Baliram resident of Raipura, whose caste has been mentioned as “Koshti”. He contended that the petitioner's ancestors belong to Samraspura and not Raipura. Therefore, the document discovered by the Vigilance Cell during the enquiry pertains to Balr