VITHOBA BALKRISHNA THUMBARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the second round of litigation, the petitioner claiming to be a Scheduled Tribe Thakar has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23rd March 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, invalidating his claim.

(2.) In support of his claim before the Committee, the petitioner furnished several documents. This included the copy Tilak of the resident certificate issued to the petitioner by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pinguli, Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. He also relied on a School Leaving Certificate issued in his favour where the caste is recorded as 'Thakar' and the date of admission is recorded as '23rd June 2000'. An attested copy of birth certificate in respect of applicant's father Balkrishna Abaji Thumbare issued by the Registrar, Birth/Death Registrar, Grampanchayat, Pinguli was also relied on. A copy of the School Leaving Certificate in respect of his uncle Thumbare Manohar Aba issued by the Head Master, Kudal High School, District Ratnagiri wherein the caste is recorded as Hindu Thakar (Backward) where the date of admission is recorded as 10th June 1968 was also placed on record. A document in respect of applicant's paternal relative Thumbare Vishram Dattaram, again issued by the Principal, Kudal High School, Ratnagiri where the caste is recorded as Hindu Thakar and date of admission as 12th June 1961 was also produced on record.

(3.) The Committee referred to the documentary evidence relied on the petitioner and made an exhaustive reference to the place of residence of the petitioner and also ventured into ascertaining the affinity of the petitioner towards the Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. As regards the place of residence, the Committee highlighted in great detail the history/background of the Thakars of Sindhudurg district of which the applicant is a Member and it then makes a reference to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 which included only Thakur community initially. It then made a reference to the Amendment Order 1956 by which the Thakur or Thakar including Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur, Ma Thakar were included in the Scheduled Tribe Order by imposing area restriction and extending the recognition of the said community in 25 Tahsils of 5 districts of Maharashtra. The Committee also make a reference to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Amendment Act 1976). After removal of area restriction and the entry at no.44 reads as "Thakur, Thakar, Ka-Thakur, Ka-Thakar, Ma-Thakur and Tilak Ma-Thakar" and the entry is made applicable to the whole State of Maharashtra. The Committee then makes a reference to a Government Resolution dated 21st November 1961 when the Thakar community was included in the list of Nomadic Tribes at Entry 22 which came to be deleted by a subsequent resolution dated 2nd June 2004. This is taken as a basis for determination of the claim of the petitioner and the Committee records that Thakar community from Sindhudurg district was covered in the list of Nomadic Tribe till the year 2004 and not into Scheduled Tribes as this particular group of Thakars in Sindhudurg district were not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Maharashtra by any parliamentary enactment. The Committee has then reasoned the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in the State of Maharashtra, Thakars Scheduled Tribe, Thakars are included Nomadic Tribes and and Thakars are also found to be in OBC category and most crucially after removal of 'Thakar' from Nomadic Tribe and OBC, now those Thakars are to be treated as open category and cannot take recourse on account of mere nomenclature as 'Thakar'. The Committee also do not find favour with the petitioner on the point of affinity and after reproducing certain portions from the judgment of the Apex Court, it record that the act of taking benefit of the nomenclature of Thakars is a wholesale fraud of the facilities and concessions meant for genuine Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra. Without commenting and individually dealing with the claim of Tilak the petitioner, with this observation of wholesale fraud , the committee proceeds to invalidate the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order.