Allowed

Dinesh Lalji Wagh v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nashik

Bombay HC27 Jul 2017WP/786/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee that rejected the petitioner's claim. The Court held that the committee could not rely on a certificate issued to the petitioner's sister without proving fraud. The committee is directed to issue a certificate of validity to the petitioner within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed, and the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue a certificate of validity to the petitioner within eight weeks.

Dinesh Lalji Wagh Vs Scheduled Tribe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP 786/11

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.786/2011

¶6

Dinesh Lalji Wagh.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik.

¶10

...Respondent...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 27.07.2017

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard both the sides. Perused the order passed
by the scrutiny committee impugned in this petition.

¶18

2]The petitioner relied upon the certificate of
validity issued to his real sister. Dinesh Lalji Wagh is
the petitioner, who applied for verification of his tribe

¶19

WP 786/11

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

claim as belonging to 'Thakur' scheduled tribe. In

¶22

support of his claim, he relied upon the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and the certificate of
validity issued to his sister Ambika Lalji Wagh. There
was an affidavit filed by Ambika Lalji Wagh dated

¶23

25.5.2005 mentioning that her claim was validated by the

¶24

Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, the case details were given
and the affidavit asserted that the present petitioner –
applicant is her brother.

¶25

3]In discarding certificate issued to the real
sister and invalidating the petitioner's claim, the
committee has gone into not only the historical and
anthropological background of the tribe, the requirement

¶26

to subject everybody to cultural affinity test, but when
it came to reliance on this certificate of validity
issued to the real sister, it is stated that the scrutiny
committee has assigned cogent reasons for discarding it.

¶27

4]It is common ground that the certificate of
validity was issued to the petitioner's real sister. The
documents at Sr.Nos.24 and 25 are photo copies of the
certificate of validity and the affidavit of real sister.
The committee observes that the certificate of validity

¶28

WP 786/11

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

may have been issued, but it was in pursuance of the
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3153/1996.
A Special Leave Petition was filed against this judgment

¶31

and order and that was allowed and the matter was sent

¶32

back to this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & others v. Ravi Prakash Babulsing

¶33

Parmar & another in Civil Appeal No.789/2005 held that certificate of validity issued to the relatives cannot be relied upon in the event there is an established fraud or

¶34

that there is mis-representation. Thereafter, the

¶35

Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of

¶36

Kum.Mdhuri Patil ( AIR 1995 SC 94 ) is relied upon to record a stereo-type conclusion namely each case has to

¶37

be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. That is

¶38

how the certificate of validity issued to the real sister
has been brushed aside.

¶39

5]We do not know how in the same family, there

¶40

could be facts peculiar to the sister and which would not
be so peculiar or applicable to the brother, and that too

¶41

to the real brother. Such artificial distinctions, which

¶42

are carved out by the Scrutiny Committee, have not been

¶43

supported by any legal basis or principle. The only

¶44

WP 786/11

¶45

- 4 -

¶46

principle or exception, that is carved out, when such
certificates of validity issued to close relatives from
the paternal side are relied upon, is that in the event

¶47

the claim of the real brother or close relative from the
paternal side is found to be vitiated by a fraud or that
there is a mis-representation, then that certificate

¶48

looses its evidentiary value. Pertinently, such a
finding has not been recorded. There is no conclusion
that the applicant – petitioner before us or his real
sister or the family misled the committee in the past and
obtained a certificate of validity. There is no proof of
any fraud as such. In the circumstances, this convenient
reasoning, which is recorded in every case and order
cannot be sustained. Once we have found that it is
without any legal basis or foundation, then all the more
we cannot sustain the impugned order. The only
contention of the petitioner's counsel, therefore,
deserves acceptance that the committee shall now proceed
to issue a certificate of validity to the petitioner as
well.

¶49

6]We quash and set aside the impugned order passed
by the respondent – scrutiny committee. The Scrutiny

¶50

Committee is directed to issue a certificate of validity
to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. The petition is
disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶51

 (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶52

ndk/ c2771711.doc

Dinesh Lalji Wagh v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nashik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Lalji Wagh v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nashik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Ramchandra Thakur Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Thr Member Secretary and Anr.

Shivaji Maroti Wadaje and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babanrao Dattatrey Yadav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Village Panchayat Radhedhamangaon through Its Sarpanch S B Rokde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suhas Mukund Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swapnil Gopal Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others