BALKRISHNA PANDURANG NAGTILAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions raise a common question as to whether the caste as shown in the certificates by its very description could be conclusive to attract the Entry as envisaged by Scheduled Tribe Order. Mr. Mendadkar appearing along with Mr. Tangasali, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged and canvassed before us that the answer ought to have been in the affirmative. We heard Shri Sonawane, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents Nos.1 to 4, who resisted the submission.

(2.) THE petitioners before us are Thakar and Thakur respectively. They claim that they belong to Scheduled Tribe, since they are covered by Entry 44 Part IX of Schedule II to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (for short, Scheduled Tribe Order). However, their claims have been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, Respondent No.2 herein. The main submission is that the Scrutiny Committee, once it finds that the description of the community in the certificate tallies with the Entry, as envisaged, it is precluded from holding further inquiry. The submission, as canvassed, is erroneous. The Scrutiny Committee has principally observed that Thakur could also be a non-tribal and, therefore, in order to ascertain the identity of the claimants with the communities, as envisaged under Entry 44, the Committee held the scrutiny. The inquiry was whether the claimants possessed the same characteristics, traditions and affinity. After holding detailed inquiry and taking into account the various documents, the Committee reached the conclusion that the claimants, though in description are Thakar and Thakur, but do not belong to the Schedule Tribe. Such an inquiry to ascertain the identity of claimants is perfectly permissible. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not assail the same or could not point out any legal infirmity in the finding as recorded.

(3.) IN the instant case, undisputedly, besides the certificates indicating Thakar and Thakur, the petitioners have not brought anything on record to indicate that they have any affinity, proximity or nearness with the community shown at Entry No. 44 of the Schedule Tribe Order. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not seriously assert that Thakar and Thakur are only tribals and no Thakar or Thakur could be in any manner a non-tribal. Admittedly, Thakar and Thakur could also be non-tribals. The Entry, as envisaged, no doubt, demanded a higher responsibility to be discharged by the claimant to establish his identity with the Entry as envisaged by the Schedule Tribe Order. We do not find any material illegality in the impugned orders. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee is, having regard to the facts on record, correct and legal.