Prakash S/O Pundalik Bayaskar Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Present Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.12.2004, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in the matter of

¶18

Petitioner invaliding the Caste of the Petitioner as he belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

There is a Certificate of Validity in respect of one Pratik Prakash Bayaskar, who is nephew of the Petitioner. It appears that Pratik was awarded a Validity Certificate in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1206/2024 , dated 16.08.2024. In the said matter, various old documents were considered. On the basis of documents pertaining to preconstitutional era, wherein caste of the forefathers of the Pratik mentioned as “Thakur” was considered and allowed the Petition. In the present matter, there is no dispute over the genealogy. Even there are no contradictory entries. This fact is clearly observed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in para 15-D (page 50) of the impugned order. However, only on the basis of affinity and area restrictions, the claim of the Petitioner came to be denied.

¶20

Judgment

¶21

3 J-WP No.5640.2024.odt

¶22

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on

¶23

Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785 , wherein

¶24

in para 20 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :

¶25

“20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1994 Mh.L.J Online (S.C.) 2. It lays down that the documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the preConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order. In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all.”

¶26

The learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly conceded that though this order came to be passed on 28.12.2004, it was not communicated to the Petitioner, at least they are not having any record to show that this order was communicated to the Petitioner. Even after 2004, the law is developed on the point of area restrictions and affinity.

¶27

Judgment

¶28

4 J-WP No.5640.2024.odt

¶29

The learned Caste Scrutiny Committee erred in discarding the old documents of cut off date showing caste “Thakur” and on the basis of affinity and area restrictions, discarded the claim of the Petitioner. In view of the Judgment in the case of Pratik Prakash Bayaskar, who is nephew of the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to declare the caste certificate as valid by setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶30

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶31

(ii) The order dated 28.12.2004, passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in the matter of Petitioner Prakash S/o Pundlik Bayaskar is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶32

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe on the basis of pre-constitutional entries of “Thakur” in the documents in relation to his blood relative.

¶33

(iv) The Respondent - Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue validity certificate to the Petitioner of Schedule Tribe “Thakur” within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

¶34

Judgment

¶35

5 J-WP No.5640.2024.odt

¶36

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

¶37

order as to costs.

¶38

( PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. )

¶39

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶40

Kirtak

Prakash S/O Pundalik Bayaskar v. the Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash S/O Pundalik Bayaskar v. the Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil S/O Laxman Jakkulwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Avinash Bhaskar Ingle Vs Maharashtra State Election Commission, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Aasha Ramkrushna Muneshwar Vs Executive Engineer, O and M Circle, Msetcl, Gondia and Others

Dipak Manikrao Chawhan Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Surdas S/O Shankar Pazare Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Devpt. and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Vasundhara D/O Vinod Dadmal, Thr. Her Natural Guardian, Father, Vinod S/O Suryabhan Dadmal Vs the Scheduled Tribe Cast Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary and Deputy Director