Burden of proof for tribal claims relies on historical documents, with older records holding more weight; claims of synonymous tribe names require clear establishment.

JUDGMENT

Abhay J. Mantri, J.

(1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2) The challenge is raised to the order dated 26/09/2023 passed by respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (for short- ‘the Committee’), whereby rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner that he belongs to “Mana” Scheduled Tribe.

(3) The petitioner claims that he belongs to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe category; accordingly, on 24/05/2018, Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol issued a caste certificate in his favour. He was pursuing education, viz., a bachelor of engineering degree in the “Open” category. For the purpose of further education, through the Principal of the Arya Gurukul International Junior College, he forwarded his caste certificate along with relevant documents to the respondent Committee for its verification.

(4) The Committee was dissatisfied with the documents produced by the petitioner and therefore, forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell has conducted a thorough enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee, observing that adverse entries were found against the petitioner's claim in pre-Constitutional era documents. Based on the report, the Committee issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner to explain the said adverse entries. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the respondent Committee. The Committee, after considering the documents produced by the petitioner, Vigilance Cell report and explanation submitted by him, rejected his tribe claim, hence this petition.

(5) Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner, to substantiate his claim, has produced sixteen documents on record and twelve validity certificates, which denote that the petitioner and his ancestors belong to the “Mana” Scheduled Tribe; however, the Committee has not considered the same in its proper perspective, but has discarded those documents observing that the validity holders have not submitted any affidavit of blood relations with the applicant.

(6) He further canvassed that in view of the law laid down in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, and based on twelve validity certificates including the validity certificate issued in favour of his father, the Committee ought to have issued a validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. He further contended that the Vigilance Cell is not empowered to recall and cancel the validity certificates granted in favour of the blood relatives of the petitioner in the absence of the finding that they had played fraud while obtaining the same.

(7) Apart from above, learned Counsel Mr. Ashwin Deshpande relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Pramod Gajbe vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2023) 9 S. C. R. 1261 submitted that in view of the observations in the said decision “Mani” entry has to be read as “Mana”, as the same has been recorded by mistakenly.

(8) Lastly, he propounded that while filing the explanation, the petitioner categorically denied the observations made in the Vigilance Cell report, as well as the petitioner resisted and controverted the observations that he had interpolated the old entries as “Mana”. Therefore, he urged for allowing the petition.

(9) As against Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Plea