Manohar Ramchandra Mirajkar Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Ors.

¶1

bsb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7695 OF 2007

¶4

Manohar Ramchandra Mirajkar... Petitioner

¶5

V/s

¶6

1. The Schedule Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region,
Pune & ors.... Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.B.Shah for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R.D.Rane, Govt. Pleader for Resp.Nos. 1 and 3.

¶9

CORAM:J.N.PATEL AND

¶10

SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 10TH DECEMBER, 2007.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

2. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of
admission itself.

¶15

3. The petitioner is in the employment as a Depot
Manager with respondent No.2. The petitioner claims
that he belongs to Hindu Mahadev Koli which is notified
as Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate of the
petitioner was sent to the respondent No.1 - The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, for

¶16

¶17

verification and by the impugned order the same came to
be invalidated.

¶18

4. We have gone through the impugned order. It has
considered all the certificates on which the petitioner
has placed reliance. During the course of scrutiny,
enquiry was handed over to the Vigilance Cell which
placed on record documents showing that the caste of the
applicant’s paternal relatives are recorded as Koli.
Even the caste of his father, Ramchandra Tukaram
Mirajkar, has been recorded as Koli.

¶19

5. It appears that the case of the petitioner before
the Committee was that, Koli is a main tribe and Mahadev
Koli, Malhar Koli, Tokari Koli, Dongar Koli, Bhil Koli,
Dor Koli, etc. are the sub-tribes of Koli and in
support of such contention reference was also made to
certain books. The Committee was justified in not
accepting the said explanation. It has further examined
the petitioner on other aspects and had found that the
petitioner was not in a position to prove his affinity
to caste Mahadev Koli which is a scheduled tribe. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioner tried to mislead
the Scrutiny Committee by placing on record a school
leaving certificate of his father Ramchandra Tukaram
Mirajkar having date of birth 5.5.1914 and the date of

¶20

¶21

admission in school on 1.6.1919, from one V.G.Deshpande
School which was found to be fake as the said school was

¶22

not in existence at the relevant time. In our view,
there is no other material placed before the Scrutiny
Committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner
does belong to caste Mahadeo Koli and therefore it was
justified in passing the impugned order.

¶23

6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition
and, therefore, we dismiss the petition with cost of
Rs.10,000/-. Cost to be paid to the State by depositing
the same with the Collector at Solapur within a period
of four weeks, failing which the Collector, Solapur,
will recover the cost by way of fine by resorting to the
provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

¶24

7. The Government Pleader to communicate this order to
the Collector, Solapur, for taking an appropriate
action. This is apart from the powers vested in the
Caste Scrutiny Committee to prosecute the petitioner for
making a false claim as provided under the Maharashtra
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

¶25

¶26

(SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)

¶27

(J.N. PATEL, J.)

Manohar Ramchandra Mirajkar v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Ramchandra Mirajkar v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaykumar Bhatia and Ors. Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Ors,.

Global Boards Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

John Misquiitta and Ors. Vs Municipalcorporation for the City of Thane and Ors.

Sanjay Chugh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nikita Mohan Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagdish Kashiram Wange Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.