Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 676 (BOM)

Laxmikant v. State of Maharashtra

2019-03-07

S.B.SHUKRE, S.M.MODAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2. The petitioners, six in number, claim that they belong to Halbi - Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No.19 of the Constitutional Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. These petitioners have also obtained certificate to that effect from the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, District Yavatmal. When these certificates were placed for their verification and the verification of the tribe status of the petitioners before respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee at Amravati, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the petitioners on the technical ground that the tribe certificates produced by the petitioners before it, were not issued it by the competent authority in prescribed form i.e. Form "C" prescribed in terms of Rules 4(6) & 5(2) (A) & (H) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'Rules, 2003' for short). Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee also observed that it was not going into the merits of the case. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in it's judgment dated 11/09/2018 rendered in Writ Petition No.5873/2018. This judgment has not been challenged so far. These facts are not in dispute. The view taken is that in a case where the caste or tribe certificate issued by the competent authority contains relevant details, although it may not be in the prescribed form, the Committee through its Vigilance Cell or otherwise can gather the relevant data for verification of the claim and then determine the social status of the person. It is also held that availability of certificate in particular format is not essential in these matters. There is no reason for us to express any different view. Going by this view, we will have to find out as to whether the relevant details are contained in the certificates issued by the competent authority. 4. The expression "relevant details" has not been explained in the judgment delivered previously by this Court in Writ Petition No.5873/2018 on 11/09/2018. To comprehend the meaning of the expression, we think that reference to Rule 11 of the Rules, 2003 and the format prescribed in Form "E" be inevitable. 4. The expression "relevant details" has not been explained in the judgment delivered previously by this Court in Writ Petition No.5873/2018 on 11/09/2018. To comprehend the meaning of the expression, we think that reference to Rule 11 of the Rules, 2003 and the format prescribed in Form "E" be inevitable. Rule 11 lays down the manner in which the application for obtaining of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by the competent authority from the Scrutiny Committee must be made. Sub Rule 2(a)(i) says that the Original Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by the competent authority along with it's one attested copy be submitted along with the application filed for obtaining of the validity certificate from the Scrutiny Committee. This rule does not speak anything about the nature or the format of the original certificate. The format of the application as per Form "E", however, throws light upon the nature of the Original Tribe Certificate to be filed along with the application. Column No.11 of Form "E" requires that the certificate subjected for verification of the Scrutiny Committee must bear the name of the authority, it's number and date of certificate. So, the "relevant details" as are compulsorily required, to be present in a certificate would be confined to the signature and designation of the authority, the number of the certificate and the date of the certificate. These details must be found to be there in the caste or tribe certificate submitted to the Scrutiny Committee for it's verification, apart from the social status of the candidate having been stated therein and this is the requirement of the Rules, 2003. 5. In the present case, upon examination of the tribe certificates obtained by these petitioners (pages 22 to 27), we find that these relevant details and also the other details regarding the tribe status etc. are already given in the certificates. So, it cannot be said that there is no substantial compliance with the requirement of the Rules, 2003 and it would have to be said that such compliance has been very much shown by each of the petitioners. We would also say that for these reasons, this case is squarely covered by the view already taken by this Court in Writ Petition 5873/2018. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. We would also say that for these reasons, this case is squarely covered by the view already taken by this Court in Writ Petition 5873/2018. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The certificates of each of the petitioners are remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for their due verification in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati for the purpose of verification on 18/03/2019 and the process of verification and taking of appropriate decision in the matter shall be completed by the Scrutiny Committee within six months from the date of appearance of the petitioners before it. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.