Allowed

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Thr Member Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2018WP/3782/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate. The Court noted documents recording caste as Thakur and referenced a prior judgment for the petitioner's uncle. It held affinity is not the sole test.

What did the court decide?

Judgment passed by the Committee is quashed; validity certificate of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe to be issued within four weeks.

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur Vs Scheduled… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp3782.12

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 3782 OF 2012

¶5

Nileshkumar Pruthviraj Thakur,...PETITIONER
Age-24 years, Occu-Education,
R/o. Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon,
Presently Residing at
Goregaon, Mumbai

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate ...RESPONDENTS Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, Through its Member Secretary

¶8

2.Maharashtra Animal &
Fishery Sciences University,
High Land Drive, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur-400 006
Through its Registrar

¶9

3.Bombay Veterinary College,
Near K.M. Hospital,
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
Through its Principal

¶10

Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr.Sagar S. Phatale,
Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.V.Kshirsagar,Advocateh/fMr.AjayS.
Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for the respondent/State

¶11

( 2 ) wp3782.12

¶12

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :05.09.2018

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER:S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶14

. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the committee has erroneously invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner is issued the validity certificate of Thakur-Scheduled Tribe on 12.05.2005. The tribe claim of real uncle of the petitioner namely Bharatbhusahn was negatived by the Committee. Said Bharat Bhushan filed writ petition No.4182/1996 before this Court and this Court under judgment and order dated 20.07.2004 has allowed the writ petition filed by the real uncle of the petitioner holding that real uncle of the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur'-Scheduled Tribe and directed the committee to issue validity certificate of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel submits that the Committee could not have sat over the judgment of this Court. The Committee has tried to discuss the legality of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of his real uncle and held that the Court has conversely interpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court in Palghar case. Same was not permissible. All

¶15

the documents of the petitioner, his father, uncle
and grand-father record the caste as 'Thakur'. The
oldest document pertains to the school record of the
grand-father dated 08.03.1924 recording the caste as
'Thakur'.

¶16

2.Learned AGP submits that only because the
documents record the caste as 'Thakur' the same is
not necessarily Scheduled Tribe. Thakur also are
found in upper class. Same has been considered. The
petitioner has failed in affinity test. The
Committee has rightly discussed the various
judgments of the Apex Court and has passed the
order.

¶17

3.We have considered the judgments delivered
by the Committee and also have gone through the
documents placed on record.

¶18

4.It is a matter of record that all the
documents relied by the petitioner of his grand-
father, father, uncle and himself record caste as
'Thakur'. The oldest document of school record
pertaining to the grand-father Manikrao Thakur dated
08.03.1924 records the caste as 'Thakur'. The same

¶19

( 4 ) wp3782.12

¶20

documents have been considered by issuing the
validity certificate to the father of the petitioner
dated 12.05.2005. Real uncle of the petitioner
Bharatbhushan had suffered invalidation of the caste
claim at the hands of the Committee. He had filed
the writ petition No.4182/1996. This Court after
considering all the aspects of the matter under
judgment and order dated 20.07.2004 allowed the said
writ petition and directed the committee to issue
validity certificate to the real uncle of the
petitioner Bharatbhushan of 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe. This Court has considered the merits and de-
merits of the case and thereafter has delivered the
reasoned order.

¶21

5.It is also settled proposition of law that
affinity is not the litmus test to award validity.
Because of urbanization traits may undergo change.

¶22

6.Considering the aforesaid judgment of this
Court passed in writ petition No.4182/1996 filed by
the real uncle of the petitioner the impugned
judgment passed by the Committee is quashed and set
aside. The Committee shall issue validity
certificate to the petitioner of 'Thakur' Scheduled

¶23

( 5 ) wp3782.12

¶24

Tribe within four weeks from today.

¶25

7.Accordingly, rule made absolute in above
terms. No costs.

¶26

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶27

VishalK/ wp3782.12

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Thr Member Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Thr Member Secretary and Ors.

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

Nagesh Ankush Pallewar Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Ashlesha Anil Shimpi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

K S Salunkhe Vs State of Mah

Sayyad Jafar Karimoddin Kazi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pathan Mohsin Khan Mehboob Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others