High Court held that under Rules 2003, revenue records and home enquiry reports are not mandatory for a tribe certificate if no doubt exists. SDO directed to decide application within 5 weeks.
Writ petition dismissed; Sub-divisional Officer directed to decide petitioner's application expeditiously within 5 weeks.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011 " Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr. N.N. Kakade, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondents.
CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 9th AUGUST, 2011.
PER COURT :-
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner, in the present petition, is seeking the following relief :-
“That by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 18.2.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to respondent authorities to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to TADVI-13 Tribe within stipulated period of time.”
3] Respondent No.3, in reply affidavit dated 3/8/2011 has stated that the application made by the petitioner for seeking
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011 " Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
2
tribe certificate is still pending, though, through inadvertence, the petitioner was informed by the impugned communication dated 18/2/2011 that it has been rejected.
4] We have perused the communication dated 18/2/2011 asking the petitioner to produce revenue record and report of the Circle Officer in respect of making home enquiry. We fail to understand as to why the S.D.O. is insisting for these documents. From bare perusal of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes ( Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, and, more particularly, Rule 3 thereof, it is clear that no such documents are necessary for deciding the petitioner's application for issuance of tribe certificate. A Corrigendum issued on 13th September, 2005, (Exhibit R-2 to the reply affidavit) does not make any reference to the revenue record. Insofar as home enquiry is concerned, that is necessary only if the S.D.O. has any doubt about the petitioner's claim. The impugned letter does not make reference to such doubt being raised by the S.D.O.
5] We have perused the annexures to the writ petition, so also, the order passed by the scrutiny committee dated 27/2/2009 passed on petitioner's appeal. From perusal of the
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011
" Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
3
document annexed to the writ petition and the order of the scrutiny committee, it is clear that tribe certificate has already been issued in favour of petitioner's grand father and father, apart from the fact that caste validity certificates are also obtained by his other close relatives. The petitioner has placed all that material before the S.D.O.
6] In the circumstances, the S.D.O. is directed to decide the petitioner's application, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 5 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner to produce copy of this order before the concerned S.D.O. within a period of one week from today.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.
[S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.]
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State is entitled to demand revenue records and a home enquiry report for a Scheduled Tribe certificate application that does not involve any doubt about the claim.
Whether the requirement of specific documents for granting a caste certificate contravenes the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance of Certificate) Rules, 2003.
Whether the Sub-divisional Officer is directed to decide the pending application expeditiously.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan
The State of Maharashtra
D.B. Bhosale
S.B. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
