The Bombay High Court held that in tribe claim cases, ethnic linkage and affinity are decisive for determining status. Dismissing the petition, the court ruled the petitioner must pursue an OBC declaration through proper legal channels.
The writ petition was dismissed. The rule is discharged. Parties bear their own costs.
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.
1 WP 2589-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2589 OF 2005
Archana d/o. Mahadeo Punde
Age 24 yers, Occ. Nil
R/o. Girvali, Tq. Bhoom
Dist. Osmanabad.
.. PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra2] The Chairman, Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad... RESPONDENT/S
Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 5th July, 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT [A.H. JOSHI, J] :-
1]The writ petition is taken up for final
hearing.
2 WP 2589-2005
2]The petitioner claims that she belongs to
Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. Her tribe claim was
scrutinized. The committee held against the
petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is before
this court.
3]In the process of hearing, the finding of
the committee in relation to affinity is
reproduced hereinbelow :-
“On going through the statements
recorded by the Vigilance Officer and the
answers given by the applicant and her
father during the course of personal
hearing. The committee observed that the
applicant and her family does hot have
even basic knowledge of traits,
characteristics, customs and culture etc.
of “Koli Mahadeo” Scheduled tribe
community.”
(quoted from P.23 of WP paperbook)
4]Entire challenge contained in the writ
3 WP 2589-2005
petition is based on reliance on the documents
relating to tribe claim.
5]Apart from the documents relied upon
during the course of hearing before the Scrutiny
Committee, in this petition, reliance is also
placed on a document, namely, Revenue Record i.e.
Pahani Patrak for survey no. 74, wherein, the
petitioner's tribe is mentioned as Mahadeo Koli.
6]Copy of translation of the revenue record
relied by the petitioner is at page 65. It is
seen from perusal thereof, that the petitioner is
described as Mahadeo Koli. Petitioner has also
relied upon the judgment in the civil suit, in
which the land Survey No. 74 is shown to be owned
by petitioner's father.
7]Various other documents are relied upon
by the petitioner in respect of her claim that she
belongs to Koli Mahadeo. All these documents
are most contemporaneous documents,i.e. these are
4 WP 2589-2005
not antecedent. These documents are, birth record
of petitioner as well as birth record of
petitioner's father etc.
Perusal of these documents are reveals
that there is no unanimity in the record as
regards the mention about caste. In some record,
caste recorded is `Hindu Koli' whereas in so me
record it is recorded as `Mahadeo Koli'.
8]In the matter of a Tribe Claim, the
factor which is decisive of the status is ethnic
linkage and affinity, as is laid down in the Act
and rules and in Madhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC
p. 94)
9]The aspect of affinity is held by the
Committee against the petitioner. Petition does
not disclose any grounds or foundation to
challenge the said finding. This point is not
persuaded by the petitioner objectively.
5 WP 2589-2005
10]The last point urged by the petitioner is
that, the committee has held that the petitioner's
claim as Koli Mahadeo is invalidated, however,
petitioner belongs to caste `Koli'. The caste
`Koli' is recognized as Other Backward Class
(OBC), and hence, the Committee ought to have
granted a declaration to that effect.
In this regard, it shall suffice to
observe that if the petitioner is desirous of
raising a claim that she belongs to Koli OBC, she
may pursue the said claim in accordance with law
and it is not necessary to grant any indulgence in
this petition for that purpose.
11]In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
12]Parties are directed to bear own costs.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J][A.H. JOSHI,J]
grt/-.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the WON'T COMMITTEE'S finding that the petitioner lacks ethnic linkage and affinity to the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe is maintainable
Whether the Writ Court should eject a declaration that the petitioner belongs to the Koli Other Backward Class instead of the Schedule Tribe
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhuri PatilApplied¶33
Madhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC p. 94) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Archana d/o. Mahadeo Punde
The State of Maharashtra
The Chairman, Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad Division
A.H. Joshi
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court