DIPAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are the father and son are challenging the common judgment and order passed by the respondent No.2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (herein after the Scrutiny Committee) constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder, whereby their claim for validity certificate as belonging to 'Thakur' scheduled tribe has been turned down.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that there was pre-constitutional school record of the great grandfather of 1/1/1914 recording his caste as 'Thakur'. Even there was a school record of grandfather Vasantrao Vyankat Solanke of 6/3/1952 mentioning his caste as 'Hindu Thakur'. Similarly there was school record of a cousin great grandfather Vinayak Rupchand Thakur of 8/6/1959 mentioning his caste as 'Thakur'. Since these were the oldest entries of the individuals who were the forefathers of the petitioners, in view of the decision in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors.; (2012) 1 SCC 113 it should have been accepted having greatest probative value. He submits that there was no sufficient and cogent reason for the committee to discard such clinching material.

(3.) He would submit that the committee also ignored the consistent view being taken whereby area restriction was expressly abolished by a presidential order of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The observation was clearly inconsistent with the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Palaghat Jila Thandan Samuday Sanrakshan Samiti and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.; (1994) 1 SCC 359 and several other subsequent judgment of this Court passed relying upon that decision.