MANSARAM GANGARAMWADE Vs. STATEOF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE minor petitioner (through his- father) by this petition is challenging the order dt. 15. 2. 1996 passed by the Caste certificates Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' ). The Committee, by the impugned order has invalidated the tribe claim of Atish Mansaram Wade, whereby he claimed that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has applied to the Committee for verification of his tribe claim as he intended to prosecute further studies and claim the benefit and privilege of reservation as provided under the Constitution of India in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The Executive Magistrate, aurangabad, had issued the certificate on 17th of July, 1993, certifying that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has submitted 24 documents before the committee. The Committee then scrutinised the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked by the Committee to appear before it along with, S. B. Talekar his father, however, the petitioner's father did not appear before the Committee but petitioner and his brother appeared before the Committee and were heard in person. At the time of hearing, the petitioner and his brother were asked to furnish information regarding sociocultural traits and characteristics of the tribe which they claim. Accordingly, the brother of the petitioner has submitted the information. The Committee took into consideration the information given by the petitioner's brother and found that the characteristics and the traits were not associated with the people belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled tribe. The Committee found that the documents which were produced by the petitioner are of recent origin and that too, after 1976. The Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not establish the tribe claim and, accordingly, the Committee, by the impugned order, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and cancelled the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate.

(2.) THE petitioner filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on 22nd of March, 1996. The petition was circulated for admission on 31st of August, 1998, which was dismissed in default. Later on, the said order was called back and the petition came to be restored to file. Thereafter, the petition appeared for motion hearing five times before different Benches, ultimately, on 31st of August, 1998, this court issued rule Nisi and gave liberty to the petitioner to file additional affidavit by way of additional evidence. Though this court has given liberty to the petitioner, he has not filed any additional affidavit till this date.

(3.) SMT. K. R. RAJPUT, instructed by Shri S. B. Talekar, learned Advocates, appeared for the petitioner. She submitted that the Committee is not constituted in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kum. Madhuri patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others AIR 1995 SC 94. She contended that, the Apex Court has directed the State Government to reconstitute the Committee which should consist of (1) Additional or Joint Secretary or any Officer, higher in rank of the Director of the concerned Department, (2) Director of Tribal Welfare Department, and (3) Research Officer. She contended that the Apex Court declared the law in Madhuri Patil's case on 2nd Sept. , 1994, and as the Committee, which has invalidated the claim of the petitioner, was not constituted in terms of the order of the Apex Court, hence the said Committee has no jurisdiction or authority to decide the claim of the petitioner. She submitted that the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Police Vigilance Cell as directed by the Apex Court in clause '5' of Kum. Madhuri Patil's case (supra), and the Committee has decided the claim of the petitioner in absence of report from the Vigilance Cell. She further submitted that the judgment and order of the Committee, being perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, as the documents which were furnished by the petitioner before the Committee were sufficient to establish the claim of the petitioner but the Committee has observed otherwise. The learned advocate submitted that the Committee has only considered the characteristics and traits of the tribe and, in doing so, the Committee has ignored the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. She submitted that the Committee has rejected the documents on flimsy grounds and, rejection of those documents, as such, the order is vitiated. She submitted that the petitioner has produced the school leaving certificate of his mother wherein caste Koli Mahadeo has been mentioned. She submitted that the marriage of petitioner's mother with his father is not an inter caste marriage. The learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the Committee by taking too technical view of the matter, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. She further submitted that the State has not demonstrated or not established that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled tribe "koli Mahadeo" As the State has not produced any document to disprove or reject the claim of the petitioner, the Committee should have accepted the evidence produced by the petitioner. She vehemently submitted that, for non forwarding the claim of the petitioner for investigation to the Vigilance Cell, the entire order has become invalid and which runs contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Madhuri patil's case, supra. She relied on the judgment of this court in Rambhau diwakar Parkhedkar v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, 2003 (1) ALL MR 1042 and submitted that, as the enquiry by the Committee is not as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, which are mandatory in character, and, because of non following it, the entire order is vitiated. She, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Committee is required to be set aside and the matter is to be referred back to the Committee which is now constituted in terms of the directions of the Apex Court.