Dismissed

Ku.Archana Tulshiram Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2021WP/1792/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Bench dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the invalidation of her Halba (Scheduled Tribe) caste certificate, holding that no perversity was found in the Scrutiny Committee's conclusion due to lack of prima facie proof of caste claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

Ku.Archana Tulshiram Kumbhare Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp1792.99

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1792 OF 1999

¶5

Ku. Archana Tulshiram Kumbhare, through its natural Guardian Tulshiram Keshavrao Kumbhare, 854, in front of N.I.T. near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Garden, Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus -

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Bombay – 32.

¶9

1. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims, Adivasi Bhavan, Amravati Road, Opposite R.T.O. Office, Giripeth, Nagpur.

¶10

1. Secretary, Medical Education, Mantralaya, Bombay – 32.

¶11

1. Chairman, Central Admission Committee, c/o Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur.

¶12

1. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, through its Registrar, Anandvalli, Nashik.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

2 wp1792.99

¶15

Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶16

Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶17

Shri J.B. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶18

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 1 MARCH 2021

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NITIN JAMDAR, J.) :

¶20

By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22 March 1999 passed by the Respondent Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner dated 16 August 1994 as belonging to “Halba” (Scheduled Tribe) issued by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur.

¶21

The Petitioner applied and was granted a caste certificate as belonging to “Halba” (Scheduled Tribe) by Executive Magistrate, Nagpur on 16 August 1994. The case of the Petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committtee for verification. The Petitioner produced ten documents in respect of her caste claim. The documents were caste certificates, Primary School record, 7/12 extract and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of

¶22

3 wp1792.99

¶23

this Court in Writ Petition No.2070/1985. Enquiry was conducted by the Police Vigilance Cell and report was given. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the caste certificates produced by the Petitioner and the documents of post independence period cannot be considered as requisite proof.

¶24

The Petitioner did not produce any document of her relatives of the period prior to 1950 to show that she belongs to “Halba” (Scheduled Tribe). The copy of the 7/12 extract relied upon by the Petitioner has been taken note of by the Scrutiny Committee and it is stated that there is no caste mentioned therein. The 7/12 extract is sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner to connect her with the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2070/1985 on 13 August 1987.

¶25

The judgment dated 13 August 1987 delivered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2070/1985 reads thus :

¶26

“Oral Judgment (Per V.A. Mohta, J.) :

¶27

Heard parties by consent on merits. Undisputed position is that the point involved is covered by our decision in Millind Vs. State (1986 (1) BCR 403) in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

As a result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, Halba. The orders

¶29

wp1792.99

¶30

¶31

invalidating the certificate are set aside. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.”

¶32

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, namely, Suresh Keshaorao Kumbhare is her paternal uncle. However, no affidavit of Suresh Keshaorao Kumbhare is placed on record. The Scrutiny Committee has observed as far back as in 1999 that the Petitioner did not produce any affidavit to establish her relationship with Suresh Keshaorao Kumbhare. In spite of this position, when the petition came up on board on 11 January 2021, we had granted an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce affidavit of Suresh Keshaorao Kumbhare. However, no such affidavit is produced. The validity certificate stated to have been issued in the name of the brother of the Petitioner refers to the earlier order of the High Court as above. Nothing is placed on record as to how this validity certificate came to be issued and what was the evidence therein.

¶33

In these circumstances, if the Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate her caste claim, no perversity can be found. Writ

¶34

5 wp1792.99

¶35

Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

¶36

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶37

khj

¶38

Digitally signed Kamal by KamalJeswani Date: Jeswani 2021.03.06 11:16:43 +0530

Ku.Archana Tulshiram Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku.Archana Tulshiram Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and 3 Ors.

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

Ruzaina Firdous D/O. Ziya Patel Vs Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Wanadongri, Nagpur Thr. Dean and Anr.

M/S. Om Shri Sai Traders through Proprietor Shri. Amit S/O Deepak Behere Vs State of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest Thr. Secretary and Others

Kokila @ Surekha Ashokrao Pinjarkar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai

Nishil S/O Ramesh Dhankar Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Deptt. of School Education and Sport, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Dudharm S/O Baguji Hanwate Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Saurabah S/O Deorao Deoghare Vs State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Medical and Drugs Department, Mumbai and Others