Partly allowed

Kum. Anisha Arun Vaswade v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024WP/7137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay partly allowed three writ petitions seeking Scheduled Tribe certificates for siblings. It quashed orders refusing certificates due to historical record discrepancies, directed the SDO to issue them, and imposed nominal costs on officials, while retaining the right to scrutinize validity certificate applications.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders; directed SDO to grant Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe Certificates to three petitioners within 30 days; ordered SDO and Committee members to pay Rs. 2,500 each to petitioners.

Kum. Anisha Arun Vaswade vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

907-908-915.odt

¶2

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILASDARADEDate: 2024.11.3014:15:40 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.15136 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7137 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION(ST.) NO.32980 OF 2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

For approval and signature of

¶7

THE HON'BLE SHRI RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. AND THE HON’BLE SHRI ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

¶8

Whether Reporters of local papers may be ) allowed to see the judgment ? )

¶9

To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair ) copy of the judgment ? )

¶10

Whether this case involves a substantial ) question of law as to the interpretation of ) the Constitution of India, 1950, or any ) Order made thereunder ? )

¶11

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil ) Judges ? )

¶12

Whether the case involves an important )

¶13

question of law and whether a copy of the ) judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Aurangabad )

and Goa Offices? )

1 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶19

(Sr.No.907) WRIT PETITION NO.15136 OF 2023

¶20

Suyesha Arun Vaswade

¶21

aged 23 years, residing at Dattawad,

¶22

Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur …..Petitioner Vs.

¶23

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

¶24

Sub-divisional Officer and Competent

¶25

Authority, Inchalkaranji, Having its

¶26

office at Ichalkaranji Division, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶27

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune through its Member Secretary, having its office at 5^th floor, Kapil Towers, Opp. RTO office,

¶28

Pune, Dist. Pune. ….Respondents

¶29

WITH

¶30

(Sr.No.908) WRIT PETITION NO.7137 OF 2024

2 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

Anisha Arun Vaswade

aged 19 years, residing at Dattawad,

¶36

Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur …. Petitioner Vs.

¶37

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

¶38

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

¶39

Committee, Pune through its Member Secretary, having its office at 5^th floor, Kapil Towers, Opp. RTO office, Pune, Dist. Pune.

¶40

Sub-divisional Officer and Competent

¶41

Authority, Inchalkaranji, Having its

¶42

office at Ichalkaranji Division, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶43

WITH

¶44

(Sr. No.915) WRIT PETITION(ST.) NO.32980 OF 2023

¶45

Ayush Arun Vaswade

¶46

aged 19 years, residing at Dattawad,

¶47

Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur. …..Petitioner Vs.

¶48

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.

3 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune through its Member Secretary, having its office at 5^th floor, Kapil Towers, Opp. RTO office, Pune, Dist. Pune.

¶53

Sub-divisional Officer and Competent Authority, Inchalkaranji, Having its office at Ichalkaranji Division, Dist. Kolhapur.

¶54

Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner. Mr. Akshay Shinde, ‘B’ PNL for the State in WP/15136/2023.

¶55

Mr. Jay Sanklecha, ‘B’ PNL for the State in WP/7137/2024.

¶56

Mrs. M. S. Srivastava AGP for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in WP(st)/32980/2023.

¶57

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶58

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶59

DATE : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2024

¶60

Oral Judgment ( Per Ravindra V Ghuge, J)

¶61

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶62

by the consent of the parties.

¶63

These three cases are yet some more examples of the

4 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

biological father having a Koli Mahadev Schedule Tribe Certificate and yet these three Petitioners, who are siblings, are refused the certificates, not only by the SDO, but, even by the three members committee.

¶68

These three siblings are the biological children of Arun Baburao Vasawade. Arun has two biological brothers namely, Kumar Baburao and Appaso Baburao. They also have the Koli Mahadev Tribe Certificate. Respondent No.2 SDO Ichalkaranji, by the impugned orders, has refused to grant the Tribe Certificate for the reason that one entry in the birth/death register of 1927 with regard to Appa Mayappa Vasawade, indicates only ‘Koli’. Some entries which are recent in time, carry ‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’ entry.

¶69

The learned AGP has vehemently opposed these three petitions contending that the SDO as well as the Committee has relied upon certain records which indicate the social status as only Koli or Hindu Mahadev Koli or Koli Mahadev.

¶70

In our view, the grounds on which the claims of these three Petitioners have been rejected, at the stage of grant of Tribe

5 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

Certificate, do not have much significance. What is necessary to be scrutinized is that the biological father of these three Petitioners and his two biological brothers, have the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe Certificates. If any of these candidates approach the Competent Committee for seeking a validity certificate under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the 2000 Act), the said cases can be strictly scrutinized and can be tested in the light of the law laid in catena of judgments. The latest view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court being in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2023 SC 1657

¶75

Since we have come across innumerable such cases and though this Court has been consistently setting aside the impugned orders, for granting Caste or Tribe Certificates, we find that the SDO and the Committee members do not seem to gather any meaning from our orders. One single order of this kind should be sufficient to enlighten the Committee and the SDO. However, despite repeatedly passing such orders, and repeatedly setting aside

6 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

the impugned orders, we find that the Committees and the SDOs continue to pass such orders and refuse caste/Tribe Certificates. We have, therefore, started imposing nominal costs on such Officers and Committee members with the hope that they would realize the error committed in passing the orders.

¶80

In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed . The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. We direct the SDO to grant the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe Certificates, with proper spelling, to all these three Petitioners within 30 days from today.

¶81

The concerned SDO, as well as each member of the Committee, would pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to each of these Petitioners, within a period of 30 days from today.

¶82

Needless to state, in the event, these Petitioners or

¶83

Arun/Kumar/Appaso or any person from the paternal side, approaches the Committee for seeking validity certificate, this order would not influence the Committee which is at liberty to follow the due procedure laid down in law and under the 2000 Act by

7 of 8

Nikita

907-908-915.odt

independently scrutinizing each of such cases.

¶88

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶89

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶90

8 of 8

¶91

Nikita

Kum. Anisha Arun Vaswade v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Anisha Arun Vaswade v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Coast Guard Employees Union a Trade Union Registered vs Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence

Smt. S Uma Maheshwari vs Municipal Corporation of Gr Mumbai Thr Its Commissioner and Ors.

Mr. Hari Yashwant Athawale vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Pandharinath Dilip Kanojia and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Manoj Gopal Mahale and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Gramin Vikas Shikshan Manda Lthr Its Secretary and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.