Somnath Bapuji Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012WP/7303/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim to Scheduled Tribe status on grounds of failed affinity test and non-residence in the traditional area. The High Court held the order was not perverse, the petition was rejected, and its operation stayed for eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; operation of order stayed for eight weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

1 W.P.7303.10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7303 OF 2010

¶4

Somnath S/o Bapuji Thakur,
Age : 25 Years, Occup.Student
R/o at Post Malpur, Taluka
Shindkheda District Dhule ...PETITIONER.

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32

¶7

2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Through its Dy. Director (Research), Nasik Division Nasik.

¶8

3. The North Maharashtra University Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, Through its Chief Examination Controller.

¶9

4. The Principal, Nandurbar Baluka Vidhayak Samiti, College of Education, Khodalmata Road, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶10

... Shri A.H.Koralkar,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for Respondent No.1 Shri P.S.Patil,Advocate for Respondent NO.2 Shri A.B.Girase,Advocate for Respondent NO.3 ...

Somnath Bapuji Thakur Vs the State of Mah and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶17

2. The claim of the petitioner as belonging to
Thakur Scheduled Tribe has been rejected after
considering the documents, on noticing that
affinity test was not satisfied and after holding
that in any case he did not/does not hail from the
area where Thakur Scheduled Tribe people are known
to have resided in past.

¶18

3. Mr. Koralkar contends that uncle, namely,
Komalsingh Onkarsingh, of the petitioner has been
given validity and that validity ought to have
been considered as decisive. In the alternative,
he submits that after removal of area restriction

¶21

Tribe people used to reside in particular area is
not relevant. Lastly, it is contended that, the
petitioner has given correct answers to the
questions to determine affinity and findings on
issue no. 3 as recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
is perverse.

¶24

as Scheduled Tribes, affinity test needs to be
applied, here the petitioner has failed to
discharge that test. Lastly, he submits that
reference to the area where Thakur Scheduled
Tribes people are/were known to reside, is only
in the alternative.

¶29

the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No. 2749 of 1998 where the Division Bench
has observed that it was not permissible for the
Scrutiny Committee to find out whether Thakur
caste mentioned was upper caste or then Scheduled
Tribe. Because of this law, affinity has not been
looked into.

¶36

7. It is not case of the petitioner that no
opportunity was given to him to prove affinity.
The petitioner has failed to establish the same.
It is urged answers given by the petitioner to
questions about traits as disclosed by him are
correct. However, there are no allegations of
malafides against the Committee Members.

¶37

8. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case ofAnand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny
verification of Triable claims and others 2011(6)
Mh.L.J.919does not rule out applicability of
affinity test. It only stipulates that documents
unequivocally showing and supporting the claim,
to a particular caste cannot be overlooked because
of failure to submit satisfactory proof of
affinity.

¶38

9. In this situation, when the Scrutiny Committee
has given the petitioner full opportunity to prove
affinity and after his failure to do so has noted
the fact that forefathers of the petitioner were

Somnath Bapuji Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Shriniwas Narayanrao Hatolkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tukaram Bapurao Bhavar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwambhar Gunvantrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Somnath Bapuji Thakur v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Shriniwas Narayanrao Hatolkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tukaram Bapurao Bhavar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwambhar Gunvantrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vidya Vihar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

A compact analysis

Coram

Harihar Shrirang Kulkarni Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shrirang Martandrao Sandve Vs the State of Mah and Anr.