Dismissed

Satish S/O. Natthusing Sable v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice, Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2022WP/825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Nomadic Tribe caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the certificate due to conflicting entries in ancestral documents and absence of affidavit proving relationship with a validity certificate holder. The Court held that reliance on validity certificates without proof of relationship requires caution and the impu

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is rejected.

Satish S/O. Natthusing Sable Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 4 26-WP-825-2022

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2022

¶4

Satish S/o Natthusingh Sable -- Petitioner Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another -- Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 01 MARCH 2022

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 7 October 2019 passed by the Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal invalidating the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner on 23 December 2011 as “Mathura Labhan” Nomadic Tribe (A) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad as the Petitioner was desirous of pursuing the higher education as his caste certificate was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee.

¶10

The Scrutiny Committee conducted Vigilance Cell Enquiry and the report was submitted. The Petitioner also submitted 9 documents before the Scrutiny Committee. In the field enquiry around 13 documents were collected by Vigilance

¶11

MP Deshpande

¶12

2 / 4 26-WP-825-2022

¶13

Cell which submitted a report on 24 July 2019. The Petitioner was given opportunity and the Petitioner submitted explanation to the Report. The Scrutiny Committee found that the Petitioner’s oldest document i.e. Petitioner’s great grand-father showed that entry as Mathuri. The Vigilance Cell enquiry was also found that there were various different entries in the Petitioner’s documents such as Mathuri, Mathura, Mathura Laban.

¶14

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

As regards the validity certificate issued to one Govindsingh relied upon by the Petitioner in the column in the impugned order where documents are described, as regards this document the entry of relationship is not established. The Division Bench of this Court in Dattatray Ramrao Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others¹ has held that the Petitioner must prove relationship with the person whose validity certificate is being relied upon.

¶16

Under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act of 2000 the burden to establish the caste claim lies on the

1 2002(4) ALL MR 807

MP Deshpande

3 / 4 26-WP-825-2022

Petitioner. Considering that different entries are found in the Petitioner’s documents as regards the caste, the Scrutiny Committee rightly insisted upon proof of relationship in respect of Govindsingh to dispel any doubt. The Petitioner could have produced the affidavit of Govindsingh, which the Petitioner did not produce. Petitioner sought to reply upon the genealogy. In case there are supporting evidence then genealogy through reliable source in respect of a validity certificate relied upon could be considered. But, if the validity certificate of the alleged relative is the only evidence relied upon, then the Scrutiny Committee has to be careful in ascertaining the relationship, as issuance of wrong validity certificate has a cascading effect. Therefore, for want of affidavit demonstrating relationship of Govindsingh with the Petitioner, if the Scrutiny Committee has not placed reliance upon the same the view taken cannot be considered as perverse.

¶21

As regards the documents produced, the Petitioner has not produced any document showing the entry as "Mathura Labhan” prior to 21 November 1961 the nomadic tribes were granted benefits. The documents showing “Mathura Labhan” are from the year 1970 onwards.

¶22

As regards the report of the Vigilance Cell sought to be relied upon by the Petitioner, the Vigilance Cell has recorded an observation that two persons who were interviewed stated that the

¶23

MP Deshpande

¶24

4 / 4 26-WP-825-2022

¶25

Petitioner belongs to “Mathura Labhan”. However, if the Scrutiny Committee, in absence of any reliable document and conflicting entries, has not placed reliance on the statement of these two persons in the village then there cannot be any error in that approach. The Vigilance Cell itself has produced the documents having conflicting entries.

¶26

Considering this position, it cannot be said that the appreciation of evidences by the Scrutiny Committee is perverse or illegal. Therefore, no case is made for interference.

¶27

The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶28

Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:08.03.2022 14:47

¶29

MP Deshpande

Satish S/O. Natthusing Sable v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice, Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish S/O. Natthusing Sable v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice, Mumbai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Mouda, Nagpur Thr. Authorised Officer, Sudhakar Deshettiwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. District Magistrate, Nagpur

Ramdeobaba Charitable Society, Akola Thr President Vs State of Maha. Thr Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Anr.

Swastik Berojgaranchi Swayam Nagri Sewa Sahkari Sanstha Thr. President Shri. Rajesh J. Kale Vs State of Maha. Thr. Director Commissionerate of Health Services, Dept. of Public Health and Anr.

Sayyed Majeed Syed Moiuddin Vs Deputy Director of Education Amravati and Others

M/S New Star Ent. Prop. Sajid Mirza Salar Mirza Vs the Akola Janta Comm. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Thr. C.E.O. Akola and Oths

Haridas S/O Sawaji Halami Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sport, Mumbai