6939-20 wp (Jt.)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6939 OF 2020

Dinesh S/o Atmaram Yeshi

Age : 42 years, Occu.: Service,

R/o. Plot No. Mohadi Upnagar,

Tq. & Dist. Dhule

... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

Department of Tribal Development,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

Through its Secretary

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee,

Nandurbar Division Nandurbar

Through its Member Secretary.

3. The Chief Executive Officer,

Zilla Parishad, Dhule,

Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

... Respondents.

....

Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advcocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

….

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 08.03.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) :-

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

1 of 9

6939-20 wp (Jt.)

2

2.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 / Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar

Division, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as the “committee”)

thereby invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to

“Thakur” Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner has approached this Court

by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

3.

Heard Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State

and Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.3 / Zilla Parishad,

Dhule.

4.

Perused the impugned order passed by the committee dated

29.09.2015 and order dated 01.01.2020 pertaining to the petitioner’

s

daughter namely Maheshwari and other papers annexed with the

petition.

5.

Mr. Yermawar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that the petitioner’s tribe claim was referred to the

committee for validation through the department along with

documentary evidence dated 24.06.2013. The committee has

conducted the vigilance. The petitioner has filed reply to the show

2 of 9

6939-20 wp (Jt.)

3

cause notice issued by the committee. The personal hearing was

conducted before the committee on 26.11.2014 and the matter was

closed for order. At the relevant time, the tribe claim of the

petitioner'

s daughter namely Maheshwari was also pending before the

committee. The committee has called upon her for personal hearing

on 08.08.2018. It is observed by the committee that the tribe claim of

Maheshwari’s father along with her brother and real aunt are also

pending before the committee.

6.

Mr. Yeramwar further submitted that the committee has

invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner’s daughter Maheshwari by

order dated 10.08.2018. Maheshwari had preferred writ petition

No.9262 of 2019. The Special Bench constituted at Principal seat,

Bombay vide order dated 23.08.2019 quashed and set aside the

impugned order passed by the committee and remanded the matter to

the committee for fresh decision. He submitted that, the committee,

by following due procedure of law validated the tribe claim of the

petitioner’s daughter Maheshwari Thakur and issued the tribe validity

certificate. According to Mr. Yeramwar, the documents of pre-

independence era right from the year 1918 were produced by the

petitioner. The petitioners tribe claim for validation was pending for

long time. On 07.01.2020, the petitioner filed an application under

3 of 9

6939-20 wp (Jt.)

4

the Right to Information Act. After receiving the documents from the

committee, the petitioner came to know that his tribe claim was

invalidated by the committee long back on 29.09.2015, however, on

the said Rojnama, the signature of Vice-Chairman was not available.

The impugned order was never served to the petitioner. Mr.

Yeramwar submitted that the impugned