Alim Shah Iqbal Shah vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Another

¶1

Judgment

¶2

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶3

2025:BHC-NAG:11385-DB

¶4

1

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3386/2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4776/2024

¶7

WRIT	PETITION NO. 3386/2022 Soyab Shah Rustam Shah,
	Aged about 33 years,
	Occupation Agriculturist, R/o
	Dhamangaon Gadi, Tahsil
	Achalpur, District Amravati. .....PETITIONER(S)
	// VERSUS //
(1)	District Caste Scrutiny
	Committee, Amravati
(2)	The Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, Amravati .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4776/2024 Alim Shah Iqbal Shah,
	Aged about 18 years,
	Occupation Student, R/o At Post
	Pardi Taluka & District
	Amravati. .....PETITIONER(S)

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

2

// VERSUS //

(1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶14

(2) District Caste Verif i cation and Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati Through Chairman/Member

¶15

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● Shri A. Subhan & Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocates for the Petitioner(s) Shri P.P. Pendke, AGP for the Respondent/State

¶17

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

¶18

CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- NOVEMBER 03, 2025

¶19

JUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶20

. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶21

by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶22

..𝓐..

¶23

Judgment 3

¶24

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶25

(2) Since Writ Petition No. 3386/2022 is treated as main Petition, the facts and contentions stated in the said Petition are set out for adjudication of the issue involved in both the Petitions and they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶26

(3) By these Petitions, the Petitioner are challenging the impugned orders dated 16.12.2021 & 31.01.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1 - District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as “the Caste Scrutiny Committee”) thereby rejecting the tribe claim of the Petitioners. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Chhapparband' tribe which is recognized as Vimukta Jatis (VJ) and enlisted at Serial No. 14 as per Government Resolutions dated 21.11.1961 and 20.03.1978.

¶27

(4) The Petitioner was appointed as Police Patil as per Section 5 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 for the period from 13.11.2018 to 12.11.2023 in the category reserved for Vimukta Jatis. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an application in the prescribed Form-16 under Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified

¶28

..𝓐..

¶29

Judgment 4

¶30

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶31

Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 before the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of tribe certificate alongwith relevant documents on 17.01.2019. Along with the tribe certificate, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3386/2022 has submitted the tribe validity certificate issued by the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of the Petitioner's cousin uncle - Rahmat Shah after conducting vigilance inquiry. In Writ Petition No. 4776/2024, the Petitioner has submitted the validity certificate issued in favour of real uncle - Salim Shah Noor Shah after due enquiry by the Vigilance Cell.

¶32

(5) The Petitioner received notice dated 10.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No.1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee along with Vigilance Cell report dated 17.12.2019. Because of the pandemic of Covid-19 and lockdown throughout the State of Maharashtra, the Petitioner could not appear before the Respondent No. 1 - Committee. The Petitioner then voluntarily appeared before the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny

¶33

..𝓐..

¶34

Judgment 5 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶35

Committee and submitted copies of representation and explanation dated 27.09.2021.

¶36

(6) Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued notice on 03.12.2021 thereby calling upon the Petitioner to remain present on 16.12.2021. The Petitioner was informed that, one Noor Shah Nazir Shah has made a complaint before the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding the tribe claim of the Petitioner. Although the impugned order invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner was passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Committee on 16.12.2021, the same was received by the Petitioner on 10.06.2022.

¶37

(7) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, though he has filed the documents prior to the deemed date. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner and in a pre-determined manner, the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee has failed to consider that it is not

¶38

..𝓐..

¶39

Judgment 6

¶40

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶41

necessary to submit all the documents in support of the claim if the tribe validity certificate is already issued in the blood relation from the paternal side. It is submitted that once the relation between the Petitioner and Rahmat Shah (cousin uncle) is proved, the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee ought not to have rejected the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee has totally ignored the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once a tribe claim in the blood relation is decided, then the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot refuse the same status to his/her blood relative who applies.

¶42

(8) The Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of their submissions, relied upon the following citations:-

¶43

“(a) Ms. Iftesam Rajjak Shaha vs. State of Maharashtra & another, Writ Petition No. 5163/2018, judgment dated 16/10/2019 passed by this Court (b) Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certif i cate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401;

¶44

(c) Zaid Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4575/2023, judgment dated 19/06/2024 passed by this Court;

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

7

(d) Asra Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 920/2021, judgment dated 13/10/2022 passed by this Court;

¶50

(e) Saniya Shah vs. DCCS, Wardha & others, Writ Petition No. 94/2023, judgment dated 17/07/2023 passed by this Court;

¶51

(f) Ku. Pallavi Dardemal vs. VC, STCCSC, Writ Petition No. 309/2021, judgment dated 20/07/2022 passed by this Court;

¶52

(g) Bushara Fahim vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 6207/2022, judgment dated 20/12/2023 passed by this Court;

¶53

(h) Alvina Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4615/2022, judgment dated 20/12/2023 passed by this Court;

¶54

(i) Shifa Iqbal vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4614/2022, judgment dated 19/12/2023 passed by this Court;

¶55

(j) Khushbu Shah vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 7967/2019, judgment dated 05/11/2020 passed by this Court;

¶56

(k) Ajiyan Tauhi S/o Vahid Shaha vs. State of Maharashtra & others, judgment dated 03/11/2023 passed by this Court”

¶57

..𝓐..

¶58

Judgment 8 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶59

(9) On the contrary, the learned AGP submits that the documentary evidence on record filed by the Petitioner shows that the Petitioner belongs to caste 'Fakir' and not to tribe 'Chapparband'. Fakir is a caste and not a tribe and it finds inclusion in the list of OBCs in the State of Maharashtra.

¶60

(10) Insofar as the complaint received by Noor Shah Nazir Shah, the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee does not have a jurisdiction to rule on such issues, and therefore, after hearing both the parties, on 16.12.2021, the Caste Scrutiny Committee dismissed the said complaint.

¶61

(11) The learned AGP further contended that in respect of the School Leaving Certificate of the grandfather of the Petitioner wherein the date of admission is shown as 21.04.1954, the caste Fakir is mentioned which is adversarial to the claim of the Petitioner. Further, the kotwal book extract in the name of great grandfather of the Petitioner, Imashya Fakir wherein the date is mentioned as 17.04.1922 also shows the caste as 'Fakir'. This is the oldest document submitted by the Petitioner.

..𝓐..

Judgment

9

wp3386.22+1.odt

(12) It is further contended that the Caste Validity certificate of Asif Shah Ainullah Shah submitted by the Petitioner could not be relied upon as the Petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence establishing his blood relationship with the said validity certificate holder. It is contended that the tribe validity certificate issued to cousin uncle of the Petitioner i.e. Rahmat Shah Rashid Shah could not be traced back to its original record, and therefore, the claim of the Petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners needs to be dismissed.

¶67

(13) The learned AGP, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following citations:-

¶68

“(a) Narayan Dinbaji Jambule & others vs. Scheduled Tribe Certif i cate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli & others, PIL No. 102/2013, order dated 15/04/2016 passed by this Court,

¶69

(b) Ashok Leyland Limited vs. State of T.N. & another, (2004) 3 SCC 1 &

¶70

(c) Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54; ”

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

10

(14) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned AGP and considered the citations relied on by both the parties.

¶76

(15) The Petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Chhapparband’ VJ. There is one validity certificate dated 23.11.2009 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of the cousin uncle of the Petitioner from the paternal side namely Rahmat Shah Rasheed Shah. It appears that there were no adverse remarks or contrary remarks given by the Vigilance Cell. For the sake of convenience, the family tree of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3386/2022 is reproduced as

under:-

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

11

(16) The family tree of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4776/2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶83

(17) After submission of the claim, the vigilance was conducted. The Petitioner was called upon to give his explanation. Accordingly, he has submitted his explanation. However, on 16/12/2021, the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order. Out of three, two Members of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner, whereas the third Member proceeded to pass a separate dissenting order validating the tribe claim of the Petitioner. In

..𝓐..

12

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

the dissenting order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is observed that the Petitioner has placed on record the validity certificate of his cousin uncle. On the basis of the said validity certificate and the Notification dated 24/11/2017 issued by the State of Maharashtra, so also the judgment in Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certif i cate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to ‘Chhapparband’ tribe is valid. However, two Members of the Caste Scrutiny Committee have invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not disputed the relationship of the Petitioner with the person in whose favour the documents are there, except the document at Serial No. 9 wherein in the remarks column, it is observed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the relationship is not established with Asif Shah Ainullah Shah. In our considered opinion also, the said person is not in the family of the Petitioner. However, so far as Rahmat Shah Rasheed Shah is concerned, who is undisputedly in relation with the Petitioner and in whose favour the validity certificate is issued, his name is appearing in the family tree of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3386/2022. Similarly, name of Salim Shah is appearing in the

¶89

..𝓐..

¶90

Judgment 13 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶91

family tree produced by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4776/2024.

¶92

(18) The two Members of the Caste Scrutiny Committee held that merely on the basis of the entry ‘Fakir’ in the document, the Claimant cannot claim to be belonging to Vimukta Jati. So far as the validity certificate issued in favour of the cousin uncle of the Petitioner namely Rahmant Shah Rasheed Shah is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has refused to rely on the said document, as there was nothing before them as to on what basis the said certificate is issued. It is a matter of fact that in many matters, this issue is already discussed that the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to consider that the validity issued earlier was proper or not. The Caste Scrutiny Committee further held that the caste ‘Fakir’ is enlisted in the list of OBCs at Serial No. 335. Therefore, the documents showing the caste as ‘Fakir’ cannot claim that as they belong to ‘Chhapparband’ tribe. The second ground for rejection of the tribe claim of the Petitioner appears to be of area restriction. It is observed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the person belonging to

¶93

..𝓐..

¶94

Judgment 14 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶95

‘Chhapparband’ tribe are mainly the residents of Bijapur District. As the area restriction is removed by the amendment of 1976, this ground is not sufficient to discard the claim of the Petitioner.

¶96

(19) It is a matter of record that on 05/01/1999, after representation of the Shah Community to the Government, one Circular was issued by the Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai. By this Circular, the President of the Indian Chhapparband Muslim Samaj Sudharak, Jalgaon requested the Government that the persons against whom ‘Shah’ word is suffixed, they should be given the certificate of Muslim ‘Chhapparband’ and should be included in the Nomadic Tribes. After considering their request and giving a considered thought, the Government directed that whosoever is claiming to be a ‘Chhapparband’ Muslim, the certificate will be issued to them, after due verification whether there is Shah suffix to his/her name, so also verification of the documents of their relatives would be conducted as to whether there is any such entry of ‘Shah’. In the said Circular, it is also mentioned that Fakir used to wander and used to circulate the fake currency. If any person

¶97

..𝓐..

¶98

Judgment 15

¶99

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶100

is having such specific characteristic and proper evidence before the Competent Authority, they should be given that certificate of ‘Chhapparband’. However, apart from these persons, any other person using Shah as suffix, they should not be included in the ‘Chhapparband’ Tribe. It is also made clear that ‘Chhapparband’ is also a caste in Hindu religion and only those Muslims, who suffix Shah after their names and those who are having the relevant documents, are entitled to be granted the certificate of ‘Chhapparband’ Tribe. It is also a matter of record that the State Government on 20/03/1978 issued an order whereby the Government Resolution dated 21/11/1961 came to be amended and Entry No. 14 is included in 1978 as “Entry No. 14-‘Chhapparband’ (including the Muslims).

¶101

(20) The Petitioner placed on record a document dated 17/04/1922 showing that a son was born to Imashya Fakir. He has also placed on record the Death Certificate of his great grand father namely Tabbu Shah showing his date of death as 15/11/1997. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that there are documents prior to 1961 showing the caste

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

16

as ‘Fakir’, the said caste is enlisted in the list of OBCs at Serial No. 335, therefore, this evidence cannot be considered.

¶107

(21) The Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to produced the documentary evidence depicting his tribe as ‘Chhapparband’ Vimukta Jati prior to the cut off date i.e. 21/11/1961. In fact, the ‘Chhapparband’ entry was included in the year 1978. Therefore, the cut off date would be 1978 and not 1961. Thus, the only ground for rejection by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is that there is no entry of ‘Chhapparband’ prior to 21/11/1961. It is a matter of record that in Writ Petition No. 4506/2004, this Court, on 12/07/2010, directed the learned AGP to verify the circumstances and authority under which letter dated 29/06/2006 is issued by the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. On 07/10/2010, the learned AGP stated on instructions from the Department of Social Justice, Cultural Affairs and Special Assistance that the Circular dated 29/06/2006 stands withdrawn and that an appropriate circular will be issued in accordance with the law. It was directed by this Court that as the number of matters on this point are pending with the Caste

¶108

..𝓐..

¶109

Judgment 17 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶110

Scrutiny Committees, fresh circular shall be issued within a period of one week from the date of passing of the order. However, no Circular was issued by the State Government.

¶111

(22) Again, this Court, vide its order dated 27/01/2011 in Civil Application (W) No. 3272/2010 in Writ Petition No. 4506/2004 recorded the casual attitude of the State Government and directed to issue fresh Circular within 15 days. As these facts were not properly placed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2802/2014, this Court recorded as under:-

¶112

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Circular dated 23rd March 2011 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, through Social Justice and Special Assistance Department in supersession of the earlier letter dated 29th June 2006.

¶113

Letter dated 29th June 2006 was in the nature of guidelines and directions to the Caste Scrutiny Committees as to how caste claim in respect of “Chhapparband” caste should be decided and to issue validity certificate accordingly. The said letter though was issued by the Secretary in his personal capacity, was shown in the name of Government. That was quashed and set aside by this Court by judgment and

..𝓐..

18

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

order dated 27th January 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 4506 of 2004. It took about five years for the Government to withdraw the said letter dated 29.6.2006, but still it is this Court which was required to quash the said letter issued by the Secretary. In the meanwhile several certificates must have been issued as per the direction contained in the said letter dated 29th June 2006 for which the said officer was fully responsible.

¶119

Now, there is further development, in that, Shri J. N. Rathor, Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department has issued Government circular dated 23rd March 2011. Thus, the said letter has now been replaced by Government circular dated 23rd March 2011. Reading the contents of said Circular, in items 1,2 and 3, it is clear that what was stated in letter dated 29th June 2006 has again been repeated in the circular except for issuing direction to act. However, we find that the act of issuance of circular dated 23.2.2011 clearly amounts to interference in the administration of justice since the Caste Scrutiny Committees are constituted in accordance with the State Act and not under the influence of the Government. Such Authorities are also called “quasi judicial authorities” whose orders are amenable only to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, that too, before the Division

..𝓐..

19

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

Bench and therefore, no Government has any authority to lay down guidelines as to how the caste claims should be decided by the committees constituted under the Act of 2001.the Committees have to function independently under the concept of independent judiciary. Such Authorities are also called “quasi judicial authorities” and, therefore, no Government has any authority to lay down guidelines as to how the caste claims should be decided by the committees.

¶125

We, therefore, call upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Government of Maharashtra to clarify the stand of the Government as to whether the Government wants to continue with this Circular dated 23rd March 2011 or would like to withdraw it. Let the stand be communicated to this Court by 17th December 2014 failing which this Court will proceed to initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned Government officer....”

¶126

(23) As per the order dated 07/10/2010, a statement was made by the learned AGP that the Circular dated 29/06/2006 stands withdrawn and that an appropriate circular will be issued in accordance with the law. Having regard to this fact, the Government was directed to issue a fresh Circular within one

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

20

week. However, there is no such order of quashing of the said letter dated 29/06/2006 by the Court. The said Circular was replaced by the Circular dated 23/03/2011. However, on perusal of the contents of the said Circular, this Court found that it is the same Circular as of dated 29/06/2006. Therefore, the State Government issued another Circular dated 16/02/2015. By that Circular, the earlier Circular dated 23/03/2011 has been withdrawn. The said Circular is taken on record vide order dated 18/02/2015.

¶132

(24) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment in Apoorva Nichale (supra) wherein this Court held as under:-

¶133

“7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it.”

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

21

(25) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of their contention that if the earlier validity certificate was not vitiated by fraud or without jurisdiction, the Committee cannot refuse to grant certificate to the Petitioner, relied on Writ Petition No. 920/2021, wherein this Court, in Paragraph No. 14, held as under:-

¶139

“14. Here in the present case, the validity certificate was issued to the real uncle of the petitioner. It is nowhere the contention of the Committee that the earlier caste certificate is obtained by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction. As there is no observation that the earlier caste validity certificate is vitiated by fraud or without jurisdiction, the Committee cannot refuse to grant certificate to the petitioner. As observed above, in the present case, the Committee nowhere observed that the uncle of the petitioner had obtained caste validity certificate by playing fraud or that grant of certificate was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, it is evident that the validity certificate granted to the real uncle was on the basis of the school leaving certificate of grandfather of the petitioner on which the petitioner is also relied upon.”

¶140

..𝓐..

¶141

22 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶142

Judgment

¶143

(26) Similar issue was involved in the above Writ Petition. The Petitioner was having a validity certificate issued in favour of his paternal uncle. The tribes of her father and brother were also recorded as Chhapparband and tribe certificates were also issued to them by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the Petitioner by assigning reason that the caste validity certificates issued to her uncle was prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others, (1994) 6 SCC 251 .

¶144

(27) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 5163/2018 (supra) wherein this Court specifically observed in Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 as under:-

¶145

“2. One of the principal grounds on which, the validity has been rejected to the petitioner is that the documents, which were of the period prior to 1961 did not establish conclusively the claim of the petitioner, as he belonging to “Chhaparband” (denotified tribe). The Committee found that there was a birth certificate extract of one Mehboob Shah Fakir dated 4.2.1936 and the name Fakir, in the

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

23

opinion of the Committee, was indicative of the caste of that person to be Fakir. The Committee held that Fakir caste is included in the category of other backward classes and, therefore, the Committee was of the view that caste certificate produced before it could not be validated by it.

¶151

In the present case, apart from pre-1961 documents, there were also two important documents, which according to us, ought to have been appropriately considered by the Committee. But, the Committee has given no importance to these two documents. These two documents are in the nature of the validity granted on 24.1.2006 to one Fakir Rajjak Shah by Nagpur Scrutiny Committee. This certificate shows that Fakir Rajjak Shah has been held to be of “Chhaparband” (denotified tribe). This person, without any dispute, is the father of the petitioner. The second document is also of validity granted to one Ramiz Rajjak Shah on 29.11.2012 by Nagpur Scrutiny Committee. Ramiz Rajjak Shah is the real brother of the petitioner and there is no dispute about the relationship. Ramiz Rajjak Shah was earlier rejected validity by the Scrutiny Committee but, he approached the High Court challenging the rejection. This Court, by judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.1399/2012 dated 18.10.2012 held that this Court in catena of

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

24

judgments, including the case of Apporva, has found that when in a caste claim of relatives of the applicant, validity is granted, denial of the same to the applicant would be unsustainable. Accordingly, this Court directed that the validity certificate be issued to Ramiz Rajjak Shah. ”

¶157

(emphasis supplied)

¶158

(28) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 4575/2023 (supra) . This Court, in the said matter, relying on the judgment in Apoorva Nichale and also the judgment in the case of Ms. Iftesam D/o Rajjak Shaha vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 5163/2018, held as under:-

¶159

“5. ….. In view of the judgment in Apoorva Nichale, it is held that, in caste claim of the relatives of the applicant, validity is granted, denial of the same to the applicant would be unsustainable. It is held in the case of Ms. Iftesam D/o. Rajjak Shaha V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition No. 5163/2018 that, “as the validity already exists in the family of the petitioner and it is necessary to avoid any anamolous situation arising, we are of the view that even this petitioner would be entitled to receive the validity of his tribe claim from the Scrutiny Committee.” It is the matter of record

¶160

..𝓐..

¶161

25 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶162

Judgment

¶163

that the tribe ‘Chhaparband’ was declared to be a denotified tribe in the year 2006 and the deemed date for this de-notified tribe was determined to be 21/11/1961…..

¶164

It is not the case of the Committee that, certificates issued in favour of the blood relatives of the petitioner were obtained by playing any fraud or misrepresentation. In view of the earlier letter and Circular issued by the Government, the said certificates were issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner.”

¶165

(29) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on several judgment passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions. To avoid repetition, we do not wish to discuss every decisions in Writ Petitions wherein similar view is taken by this Court.

¶166

(30) This Court in Writ Petition No. 5163/2018 (supra) ,

¶167

after discussing the manner in which the whole issue has been dealt with by the State of Maharashtra, observed as under:-

¶168

“5. ….. This Court then observed that the said letter though issued by the Secretary in his personal capacity, was shown in the name of Government. This Court then also found that the letter dated

..𝓐..

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

26

29.6.2006 was quashed and set aside by this Court in judgment and order dated 27.1.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.4506/2004……

¶174

It is seen from the Circular dated 16.2.2015 that now the Government has taken its stand in the matter and accordingly has withdrawn the Circular dated 23.3.2011. But, while doing so, the Government also has taken its stand regarding validity certificate already granted to the various persons before 16.2.2015. The Circular dated 16.2.2015 is silent on this aspect of the matter. We are of the view that the State of Maharashtra must decide its further course of action as regards the validity certificate already granted to different persons on the basis of 2006-letter and subsequent Circular. We hope that in future, definite decision would be taken by the State of Maharashtra. ”

¶175

(emphasis supplied)

¶176

(31) Learned AGP argued before this Court in the said matter that there was no vigilance enquiry or report in respect of the earlier validity certificate issued. This Court, observed that the argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that one of the validity certificates has been issued only after a direction

¶177

..𝓐..

¶178

Judgment 27

¶179

wp3386.22+1.odt

¶180

was given by this Court, and in such a case, the question of presence or absence of the vigilance enquiry would never arise.

¶181

(32) The learned AGP vehemently submitted that once the Circular in question was withdrawn by the Circular of 2015, the earlier Circular becomes nullity and the certificates issued would also to be treated as nullity. He relied on the judgment in Raju Ramsingh Vasave (supra) in support of his contention that though the certificates were issued in favour of the paternal relative of the Petitioner, those were issued without jurisdiction, and therefore, the principle of res-judicata will not apply. However, there is no declaration about nullity. The Circular was withdrawn by the State.

¶182

(33) In view of the above law position and as the validity certificates was already issued in favour of the paternal relative of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is also entitled to get the validity certificate of ‘Chhapparband’ Tribe. Even if the communication of 2006, which is just the guidelines for issuance of certificate of 'Chhapparband' in respect of the Muslim persons having entry of Fakir in his old documents and surname ‘Shah’,

¶183

..𝓐..

¶184

Judgment 28 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶185

this letter is withdrawn after period of 9 years in 2015. Till then, there was no clear guidelines or Circular by the State Government either to the Caste Scrutiny Committee or to the Competent Authority for issuance of caste certificate. Needless to mention that there was earlier Circular dated 04/01/1999 is neither superseded nor cancelled.

¶186

(34) This Court, in Writ Petition No. 5163/2018, specifically observed that the State Government has not taken any stand in respect of the validity certificate already granted to the different persons on the basis of the letter dated 29/06/2006 and subsequent Circular. While withdrawing the Circular, the Government also has not taken its stand regarding the validity certificate already granted to the various persons before 16/02/2015. The Circular dated 16/02/2015 is silent on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the State Government must decide the further cause of action as regards the validity certificate already granted to the different persons. In spite of this observation, the State of Maharashtra has not taken any decision on that. The learned AGP vehemently submitted that the communication on the basis of which such certificate are

¶187

..𝓐..

¶188

Judgment 29 wp3386.22+1.odt

¶189

issued, the same came to be withdrawn. In view thereof, the certificates issued are without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law.

¶190

(35) In our considered opinion, there has to be a specific order declaring that these certificates are cancelled or nullity by the State of Maharashtra. Till then, the persons having the validity certificates in favour of their blood relatives, they cannot be denied the certificate of belonging to 'Chhapparband' Tribe.

¶191

(36) Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-

¶192

O R D E R

¶193

(a) The Writ Petitions are allowed .

¶194

(b) The impugned orders dated 16.12.2021 & 31.01.2023 passed by the Respondent - District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case No.

¶195

fttkizil/ve.lsok./lks.“kk.jq.“kk/019607/2019/839 and Case No. JJPPS/Amravati/VAS/ASES/652295/2022-297 are hereby quashed and set aside.

..𝓐..

30

Judgment

wp3386.22+1.odt

(c) It is declared that the Petitioners have duly established that they belong to 'Chhapparband' Vimukta Jati. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificates to the Petitioners as they belongs to 'Chhapparband' Vimukta Jati, within a period of eight weeks.

¶201

(d) The Petitioners can rely on the copy of this judgment until the validity certificates are issued to them.

¶202

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of .

¶203

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶204

..𝓐..

Alim Shah Iqbal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alim Shah Iqbal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manohar Tulsiramji Patil and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Nagpur and Others

Vijaykumar Olgan Bisen and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. General Administration Dept., Govt. of Maha., Mumbai and Ors.

Harishchandra Narayandasji Dangra and Others vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Collector, Nagpur and Others

Anjali D/O Shankar Kalmeghe, Thr. Natural Guardian Father, Shankar S/O Bajirao Kalmeghe vs the Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur and Ors.

Ishrat Fatema Shaikh Ahemad vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Pratham Ghanshyam Bais vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mumbai and Anr.