Petitioner challenged an order invalidating his Scheduled Tribe status. Bench rejected ex-parte plea noting petitioner evaded hearings. Dismissed petition as petitioner failed to prove Mahadeo-Koli status despite evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6814 OF 2008
Kumar Hirgappa Koli.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye for the petitioner.
Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for the State.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 24TH JULY, 2009.
P.C.:-
2
AJN
7/10/2007, the elections of the Gram Panchayat Jath were held. The petitioner claiming to be Mahadeo-Koli contested from Ward No.6, which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. On 9/10/2007, the petitioner was declared as elected from the said ward. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29/7/2008 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his claim that he belongs to Mahadeo-Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition.
AJN
3
Committee. He drew our attention to the Vigilance Committee Report dated 7/6/2005 and pointed out that in this report, names of several persons have been noted and it is clearly stated that they are related to the petitioner only by name. He submitted that it was, therefore, not open to the Scrutiny Committee to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a Mahadeo-Koli merely because certain people who have the same surname as that of the petitioner, are shown to belong to Koli caste. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of this court to which one of us (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) is
a party, in Deepika Yogeshwar Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008 (3) Bom.C.R. 630 where
after relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing
Parmar 2007 (1) SCC 80 , this court has taken a view that surname by itself is not indicative of the caste. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner can prove that the said persons are not related to him. He submitted that inasmuch as the impugned order is ex-
AJN
4
parte order, it may be set aside and he may be given a chance to appear before the Scrutiny Committee and prove that he is Mahadeo-Koli.
AJN
5
petitioner and he was asked to submit his say on or before 30/9/2005 but the petitioner failed to submit his say. The Scrutiny Committee vide its letter dated 3/5/2008 called the petitioner for hearing on 16/5/2008. Copy of the enquiry report dated 7/6/2005 on which arguments are being advanced was sent to the petitioner along with this letter and the petitioner was asked to submit his say on or before 16/5/2008 but the petitioner did not appear for hearing. The petitioner did not submit his say on the findings of the inquiry report. The petitioner was again called for hearing on 11/6/2008 vide Scrutiny Committee’s registered letter dated 30/5/2008 but he did not appear for hearing. He did not submit his say on the findings of the inquiry report. The Scrutiny Committee has stated that the receipt of the registered letter is on record. The petitioner was again called for hearing vide Scrutiny Committee’s telegram dated 25/6/2008 but he did not appear for hearing nor did he submit his say on the findings of the inquiry report. It is in these circumstances, that the Scrutiny Committee had no option but to peruse
6
AJN
the inquiry report and the other available documents and pass the order. We cannot fault the Scrutiny Committee for this. A person who willfully abstains from hearing before the Scrutiny Committee cannot turn around and say that the order passed against him be set aside because it was ex-parte. It was open to the petitioner to submit a detailed reply. It was open to the petitioner to go and ask for time. He did not do either. The Scrutiny Committee has stated that the case of the petitioner was referred to it by the Collector, Sangli (Election Branch) and being election matter it had time limit and hence the Scrutiny Committee had to decide it within time limit. The petitioner’s proposal was earlier sent by his employer - MSRTC. The petitioner obviously did not participate in the inquiry because he wanted to buy time.
AJN
7
Committee at the time of hearing. In fact, learned counsel has fairly admitted that at least one notice dated 30/5/2008 was served on him. A faint grievance was made that impugned order was also not served on the petitioner. But that is not true. The impugned order was sent to the petitioner at the address given in the cause title of the petition. It was also sent to him at Achakanhali, Taluka Jat, Dist Sangli.
8
AJN
there is at all any urgency. In any case, since the urgency was pleaded in the interest of justice we have taken up this matter for final hearing.
AJN
9
petitioner, his caste is shown as Koli as on 17/12/1948. Vithal Tamanna Koli is shown as relative of the petitioner. In his school record as in 1952 he is shown as Hindu-Koli. Even if for a moment we leave aside all other names, who appear to be distant relatives of the petitioner and who are also shown to belong to Koli caste, the school record of Bhimanna and Sidraya who are the petitioner’s relatives is of a period prior to the Presidential Order and has great probative value. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 . It is pertinent to note that the Scrutiny Committee has also observed that at the time of home inquiry, the petitioner’s brother was unaware of most of the characteristics and customs of Mahadeo-Koli, Scheduled Tribe. Hence, the affinity towards MahadeoKoli Scheduled Tribe, is not proved. Therefore, in our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted for having concluded that the petitioner is a Koli and does not
10
AJN
belong to Mahadeo-Koli, Scheduled Tribe. In the view that we have taken, in our opinion, no interference is necessary with the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim is liable to be set aside as an ex-parte order?
Whether the petitioner has satisfied the burden of proof to belong to the Mahadeo-Koli Scheduled Tribe?
Whether the notification of the petitioner's relief should be withheld in view of the outcome of the writ petition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepika Yogeshwar Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Referred¶23
Deepika Yogeshwar Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008 (3) Bom.C.R. 630 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing ParmarReferred¶24
State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar 2007 (1) SCC 80 · Who else cites this
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane & Ors.Referred¶46
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane & Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 437 · Who else cites this
Kumar Hirgappa Koli
The State of Maharashtra
Additional respondent
Ranjana Desai
A. A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
