Dismissed

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar v. Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014WP/4881/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the Caste Scrutiny Committee's decision to invalidate a petitioner's claim of belonging to the Thakar scheduled tribe, upholding the committee's finding based on historical evidence and a vigilance report.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is rejected without any order as to costs.

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Pvr 1/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4881 OF 2014

¶5

Smt.Meenakshi Ramdas Thakar ) Aged 47 years, Occupation Service, ) Resident of At & Post – Sade ) Tal.Karmala, Dist.Solapur. )...Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee ) No.1, Solapur ) ) 2. The State of Maharashtra ) Mumbai. )...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos..1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM: A. S. OKA & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 18^st September, 2014

¶12

JUDGMENT :- ( PER G.S.KULKARNI, J. )

¶13

Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

Pvr 2/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶15

By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 22^nd October, 2007 whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of validity of caste certificate dated 2^nd August,2003 that she belongs to 'Thakar' scheduled tribe, has been invalidated.

¶16

It is the petitioner's case that she belongs to 'Thakar' scheduled tribe and was issued a caste certificate to that effect by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madha Division, Kurduwadi, Dist. Solapur dated 2^nd August,2003. The petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, by the office of the Tahasildar, Karmala by its letter dated 28^th October,2004 for a verification and for issuance of a caste validity certificate. The petitioner submitted various documents as evidence in support of her claim. The documents submitted by the petitioner are narrated in paragraph (2) of the impugned order in support of her claim that she belongs to the Thakar scheduled tribe.

¶17

The Caste Scrutiny Committee had directed for a vigilance inquiry. The vigilance officer submitted a detailed report dated 18^th October, 2005 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The vigilance officer recorded the statements of the petitioner's father as also collected various documents pertaining to the petitioner's relatives. The vigilance officer observed in its report that on the basis of the documents from the year 1934, of the cousin uncles of the petitioner

¶18

Pvr 3/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶19

it was seen that they were either “Hindu Maratha” or “Hindu Bhat”. It was observed in the vigilance report that the petitioner's father had showed his caste to be “Hindu Maratha” which was clear from the document dated 26^th July,1946. On the basis of all these documents and the statement of the petitioner's father as recorded by the vigilance officer, it was observed that the petitioner and her father also failed in affinity test inasmuch as they were not aware about the customs, rituals and traditions of the Thakar tribe.

¶20

The Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order has considered the various documents as placed by the petitioner for its consideration and has also considered the vigilance report, to record a finding that the petitioner does not belong to Thakar scheduled tribe. The petitioner was given a hearing by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as also an opportunity to place before the Committee the appropriate material in support of her claim.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings as recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are erroneous inasmuch as the oldest documents viz. the service discharge card of the petitioner's father wherein the caste is recorded as Thakar, hence,the date of enrollment that is 3^rd October,1962, ought to have been considered and on the basis of the same validity ought to have been granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the claim of the petitioner. He submits that also the other documents of certain relatives showing the caste of the petitioner as 'Hindu Thakar' have been disregarded. It is submitted that the

¶22

Pvr 4/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶23

caste scrutiny committee ought to have conducted an inquiry as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “ Kumari Madhuri Patil. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development; (1995 AIR(SC) 94) ”.

¶24

We have perused the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We have perused the vigilance report which is quite extensive, as placed on record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The vigilance officer has recorded the statement of the petitioner's father. It is clear from the findings of the vigilance report that the petitioner's father had described his caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. Further, the petitioner's father also could not give satisfactory answers in regard to the rituals and customs of the Thakar scheduled tribe. The vigilance report has also categorically recorded that the cousins of the petitioner have described themselves as belonging to 'Hindu Maratha' caste. We do not find that the petitioner disputes that the father of the petitioner described himself as belonging to 'Hindu Maratha' caste either before the Caste Scrutiny Committee as also in the ground as raised in the present petition.

¶25

We have considered the reasoned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has analysed all the documents as placed on record and has recorded a finding that the entries based on the caste certificate cannot be treated as a conclusive proof to determine the tribe claim as asserted by the petitioner for the reason that the caste certificate is always subject to the scrutiny and hence, the petitioner's case on the basis of

¶26

Pvr 5/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶27

these documents cannot be sustained. These documents of the relatives as collected in the vigilance inquiry for the period from 1934 to 1946 showed the caste of the cousins and the petitioner's father as belonging to Hindu Maratha or Hindu Bhat. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of facts as recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶28

The reliance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Kumari Madhuri Patil ” (supra) in support of his submission that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not followed the procedure as laid down by the Apex Court, is of no avail, inasmuch as in the present case the Caste Scrutiny Committee has adopted a proper procedure which includes the opportunity granted to the petitioner to place the entire material in support of her caste claim as also the hearing was granted to the petitioner after a vigilance report was called for and placed on record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We do not find that there is any infirmity or illegality in the procedure adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶29

The petitioner had failed to demonstrate on the basis of acceptable material that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakar' scheduled tribe. In any event, the finding as recorded in the vigilance inquiry that the father of petitioner had shown his caste as 'Hindu Maratha' and also the cousins showed the same caste, could not have been overlooked by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste

¶30

Pvr 6/6 wp4881-14.doc

¶31

Scrutiny Committee has, therefore, rightly taken into consideration these facts

¶32

and has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶33

In the light of the aforesaid observations, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. No order as to costs.

¶34

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar v. Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar v. Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Baliram Gopal Katkari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Dheeraj Anant Meher Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

More Chetana Vijay Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Mehad Mohd. Tanveer Vs Mohammed Tanveer

Shri. Sadashiv Dharmaji Mhatre Vs Union of India and Anr.