KIRAN SAHADEORAO RAOO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated nil, passed by the respondent No. 2 committee, by which, the Committee has negatived the petitioners claim that he belongs to Halba, Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) THE only point urged on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, which deserves acceptance, is non-compliance of Guideline No. 5 laid down by the Apex Court in the case of (Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others) reported in 1995 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)690 : A. I. R. 1995 S. C. 94. It is obvious from the report of the Police Vigilance Cell that the cell has made an enquiry only from the entry of school admission register, wherein the caste of petitioners father is recorded as Koshti. Guideline No. 5, as aforesaid, reads as under: 5. Each directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities, etc. " It is clear from the aforesaid guideline that the Supreme Court has made it clear as to the nature of enquiry, which the Caste Scrutiny Committee is expected to conduct and the Police Vigilance Cell of the Committee must interview and record statements of the candidate, his parents or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate. Moreover, there must be an enquiry into the anthropological and ethnological traits with reference to the ceremonies, rituals etc. , being followed in the candidates family. In the instant case, the Committee admittedly, has not done so, the impugned order of the Committee deserves to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded to the Committee to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.