MAYUR ASHOKRAO SONPAROTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe claims, Nagpur, dated 27. 3. 1999 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on four grounds. The first submission is that although documents at Annexure 'h' and Annexure 'l to this petition, which relate back to the year 1913 and 1925 respectively, were produced before the committee, however, the Committee has not even adverted to the said documents. According to him, the said documents were decisive of the caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'halbi' - Scheduled Tribe. The second point urged is that, the Committee has discarded documents produced before it at sr. no. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11, solely on the ground that the said documents were issued after the issuance of the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. According to him, the documents could not be discarded on this reasoning, but it was incumbent upon the Committee to examine the genuineness and authenticity of those documents and record a clear finding that the said documents cannot support the caste claim of the petitioner This submission is made in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 1338 (Gayatnlaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v State of Mah and others ). The third contention raised is that there is nothing on record, especially in the order or even submission filed before this Court, to indicate that the procedure as envisaged by the Apex Court in Direction 5 of the decision reported in AIR 1995 (SC) 94 (Madhuri Patil and another v Add] Commissioner, Tribal Development and others- case No 1), has been duly complied with The challenge is that, the person associated with the Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, for investigation was not competent, in that he was not Research Officer/tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer, who alone could have been associated in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported AIR 1997 (SC) 2581 (Madhnn Patil and another v Add] Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others case no 2) It iis submitted that even the other requirements under direction 5 of the madhun Patil's case no 1 of personal verification and examination and the relevant records as well as interviewing the candidates and his parents has not been complied with Consequently, it is submitted that due to non compliance of mandatory procedure, the order issued by the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. The last point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Caste scrutiny Committee has discarded document at sr no 1 on the ground that the caste certificate of the student cannot be treated as conclusive proof According to the learned counsel, the said certificate was issued by the competent authority based on the contemporaneous record produced by the petitioner before the said authority including his school leaving certificate, transfer certificate of his father, transfer certificate of his grandfather, copy of service book of his father. Municipal council Birth Certificate, Ward Sabhasad Certificate and affidavit It is submitted that, it was, therefore, inappropriate to discard the said document on the basis of the reasoning given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order.