Vitthal Narsing Bhosle Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Vitthal Narsing Bhosle Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; both impugned orders quashed and set aside; respondent No.1 competent authority directed to issue the tribe certificate to the petitioner as prayed for, within one week.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent No.1 competent authority erred in refusing to issue to the petitioner a tribe certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe notwithstanding the tribe certificate held by his father since 8 October 1993. +1 more

Court's answer

The tribe certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe held by the petitioner's father, issued on 8 October 1993 by the competent authority, was sufficient basis for respondent No.1 competent authority to issue a similar certificate to the petitioner; verification of it lay with the Scrutiny Committee.

Ratio / Principle

In considering requests for issuance of tribe or caste certificates, no full-fledged inquiry is contemplated at that stage; only prima facie material is to be looked into, since any certificate issued remains subject to further validation by the Scrutiny Committee.

Key takeaways

By demanding fuller scrutiny at the certificate-issuance stage, the Scrutiny Committee put the cart before the horse; mere apprehension that unscrupulous persons obtain certificates by pretence cannot justify depriving genuine claims, particularly when the law requires further scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee for validation of any certificate.ratio¶22
In light of the above, both the impugned orders — the competent authority's refusal to issue the tribe certificate and the Scrutiny Committee's dismissal of the statutory appeal — are unsustainable.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), 19 June 2024 — Writ Petition No. 5798 of 2024 (Vitthal Narsing Bhosle v. Sub Divisional Officer and another): Writ petition by an applicant for a tribe certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe allowed. The competent authority had refused the certificate and the Scrutiny Committee had dismissed the petitioner's statutory appeal, although the petitioner's father held a tribe certificate of the same tribe issued on 8 October 1993 (Exhibit-B) and no validity certificate existed in the family. Held: at the certificate-issuance stage no full-fledged inquiry is contemplated; only prima facie material is to be examined, since any certificate issued remains subject to validation by the Scrutiny Committee. The father's 1993 certificate was sufficient basis for the competent authority to issue a similar certificate to the petitioner; the Committee, by insisting on fuller scrutiny at that stage, acted by putting the cart before the horse. Apprehension of unscrupulous claims cannot justify depriving genuine claims. Both impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the competent authority was directed to issue the certificate as prayed for within one week. Coram: Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.

2024:BHC-AUG:11386-DB

935-wp-5798-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

935 WRIT PETITION NO.5798 OF 2024

VITTHAL NARSING BHOSLE VERSUS

SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Mr. Sagar S. Phatale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, AGP for Respondents-State.

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 19 JUNE 2024

ORDER :-

Heard both the sides.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.1 competent authority refusing to issue tribe certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe and also the decision of the respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee, whereby his statutory appeal has been dismissed.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is no validity certificate in the family. The petitioner was relying upon the tribe certificate possessed by his father issued way back on 8 October 1993 (Exhibit-B). There was no sufficient and cogent reason for both the authorities below to discard this. They have resorted to the scrutiny as if the petitioner was seeking certificate of validity. The

[1]

935-wp-5798-2024.odt

purport of the inquiry at this stage was limited. Prima facie there was sufficient material, which has been expressly ignored without any basis.

Learned AGP justifies both the orders.

This Court has time and again laid down the parameters to be borne in mind by the competent authority and also the Scrutiny Committee in considering the requests for issuance of tribe or caste certificates. No full-fledged inquiry at that stage is contemplated. Only prima facie material is to be looked into, the reason being that any certificate issued would be subject to further process of validation which provides sufficient precautionary measure that the certificates are not being obtained without any basis.

When admittedly the petitioner’s father has been possessing a tribe certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe issued way back on 8 October 1993 by the competent authority, in our considered view that should have been sufficient basis for respondent No.1 competent authority to issue a similar certificate to the petitioner and the Scrutiny Committee could have undertaken its verification.

The Scrutiny Committee is acting like putting cart before the horse, which is not expected of it. Mere apprehension that some unscrupulous persons have been obtaining certificates by pretending

[2]

935-wp-5798-2024.odt

to be belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can only put the authorities on guard, but they cannot take shelter of this to deprive the genuine claims, particularly when the law requires further scrutiny by the Scrutiny Committee for validation of any certificate.

In the light of above, both the impugned orders are unsustainable.

The writ petition is allowed.

Both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

The respondent No.1 competent authority shall issue tribe certificate to the petitioner as prayed for, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of one week.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[3]