Allowed

Srushti Dhanraj Kore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Feb 2022WP/1662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the invalidation of her Scheduled Tribe certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. The court held that validity certificates issued to close blood relatives are relevant facts and that the affinity test cannot be a sole criteria to reject a claim. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner of the "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe.

Srushti Dhanraj Kore Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2022

¶5

Srushti D/o Dhanraj Kore Age : 19 years, Occu. Student, R/o : Near Deshmukh Hospital, Tambri Division, District Osmanabad … PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32 Through its Secretary

¶8

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary

¶9

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat, Office at Aurangabad, Taluka & District Aurangabad. Through its Member Secretary

¶10

The Commissioner & Competent Authority Commissionerate of Common Entrance Test Cell, (CET) Cell (Medical), Regional Office : CET Cell (DMER), Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building, St. George’s Hospital Compound, Near CST, Mumbai - 400 001 …. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh h/f Mr. vivek U. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner

¶12

Mr. A.S. Shide, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND

¶14

S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2022

¶16

¶17

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER : S.G. Dige, J.)

¶19

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

¶20

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad - respondent No. 2 (for short “the Scrutiny Committee”) dated 10^th December, 2021 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe community.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are as under-

¶22

The tribe certificate of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’, Scheduled Tribe was referred to respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee for verification through the College of petitioner along with the documentary evidence of oldest entry of Birth Register pertains to 1350 Fasli of cousin grandfather, namely, Sambhaji Limbaji Kore, which demonstrate the caste as “Koli Mahadev” and old entry of the year 1951 pertains to great grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Limbaji Bhiva showing caste therein as “Koli Mahadev” and the caste validities issued in favour of his father and real uncle, namely, Dhanraj Bhalchandra Kore and Sampat Bhalchandra Kore, respectively, by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee had referred the matter for vigilance inquiry. After receiving vigilance cell report, the Scrutiny Committee served copy

¶23

¶24

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶25

of the vigilance cell report to the petitioner directing to submit reply to it. Petitioner had submitted reply to the vigilance report. However, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Tribe claim of the petitioner vide the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

¶26

It is the contention of learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh, for the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee overlooked documentary evidence since 1350 Fasli showing the social status of the family of the petitioner namely as ‘Koli Mahadev’, Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Cell Officer intentionally did not collect the proper evidence, which shows that the petitioner was belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe. The caste validity certificates are issued in favour of the petitioner’s father and real uncle. The Scrutiny Committee has discarded the evidentiary value of these validity certificates. These certificates of validities have been granted by the Scrutiny Committee that too after considering all aspects but while invalidating the claim of present petitioner it was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in the cases of Anand V. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2011(6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919 and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.

¶27

¶28

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶29

Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for respondent -State submitted that while passing the order the Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents produced by the petitioner and validity certificates issued in the family of the petitioner. After considering all documents, Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove his tribe claim as ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe. The petitioner’s relatives have shown their caste as “Koli”. There are contra entries. The petitioner failed to prove affinity test. Hence, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is legal and valid.

¶30

The learned counsel Shri Narwadkar for respondent No. 4 supported the arguments of learned AGP.

¶31

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for

¶32

the parties and perused the record.

¶33

The petitioner is claiming that she belongs to “Koli Mahadev”. There are documents produced on record which show caste of close blood relatives of petitioner as ‘Koli Mahadev.’ There are contra entries on record. Petitioner has denied the relationship with the relatives having contra entries. The respondents have not produced reliable evidence to prove contra entries. The Scrutiny Committee has issued validity certificates to the father of the petitioner, namely, Dhanraj Bhalchandra Kore and real uncle, namely, Sampat Bhalchandra Kore.

¶34

¶35

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶36

The Scrutiny Committee has decided to review said orders, as two caste validities of “Koli Mahadev” scheduled tribe are issued to father and real uncle of the petitioner. In case of Apoorva (Supra) , this Court has observed that validity granted to the close blood relatives would be a relevant fact. The Scrutiny Committee in order has observed that the petitioner has failed in the affinity test. Two caste validities have been issued in family of petitioner including petitioner’s father. While granting caste validites all aspects were considered. In respect of affinity test, the Honourable Apex Court has held in Anand’s case ( supra) that a cautious approach has to be adopted, and with the migrations, modernization and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It holds that the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as a sole criteria to reject a claim.

¶37

In the light of above, we pass the following order:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(I) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.

¶40

¶41

1020-WP-1662-22.odt

¶42

(II) The said validity certificate shall be subject to the decision that would be taken by the Committee in the proceedings reopened of the validity holders relied by the petitioner.

¶43

(III) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶44

Writ Petitions is disposed of. No costs.

¶45

( S.G. DIGE ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE mtk

Srushti Dhanraj Kore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srushti Dhanraj Kore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

M/S Aditya Construction through Its Partner Suyash Padmakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Aditya Construction through Its Partner Suyash Padmakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Aditya Construction through Its Partner Suyash Padmakar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohanlal Chotelal Bhagat Vs the Union of India and Others

Rajesh Chotelal Bhagat Vs the Union of India and Others

Kishanlal Chotelal Bhagat Vs the Union of India and Others