Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 501 (BOM)

Gomati Kishor Palliwar v. State of Maharashtra

2024-03-27

ABHAY J.MANTRI, N.W.SAMBRE

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Abhay J. Mantri, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21-03-2018 passed by respondent no.2- Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims (for short- 'the Scrutiny Committee'), whereby invalidated the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). 3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). On 05-01-1990, the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Wardha, issued a caste certificate in her favour, recognizing her as 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Based on the said caste certificate, the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of 'Peon'. 4. On 30-07-2013, respondent no.4 forwarded the caste certificate of the petitioner for verification to the respondent no.2 Committee along with the proposal. The petitioner has also submitted the documents before the respondent No. 2 Committee in this regard. 5. The respondent no.2 Committee was of the view that the petitioner's claim is doubtful, hence, the same was forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell has conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee on 13-02-2017. In the report, it is observed, that the documents before 1950 depict the caste of the ancestors of the petitioner as 'Telanga' and 'Telangu' which are inconsistent with other entries. The Committee after considering the Vigilance Cell report and documents on record, passed the impugned order thereby negating the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. It is pertinent to note that on 14-03-2024 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, he sought time to place on record the relevant documents. As such, the Court has passed a detailed order in that regard and granted time to place relevant documents on record, by way of last chance. The said order thus reads as under :- "Heard. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe has been invalidated by the respondent no.2-Committee vide order dated 21/03/2018. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2023 (Ku. 2. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannewar' Schedule Tribe has been invalidated by the respondent no.2-Committee vide order dated 21/03/2018. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.3871 of 2023 (Ku. Gauri d/o Vinay Palliwar vs. State of Maharashtra and others) on 09.08.2023 and submitted that whilst determining the claim of the petitioner (Gauri) therein, this Court has considered the document i.e. School Leaving Certificate of her father and granted validity in favour of her. On that basis, he would claim that the petitioner is entitled to a grant of validity certificate. 4. When confronted Mr. Mishra about the entries Telanga 1941 and Telugu 1948, he failed to satisfy the Court on the said entries. So also, he failed to show as to how Gauri and Vinay are related to the petitioner since he has not produced any document on record about their relationship. Even in the family tree produced on record does not disclose the names of Vinay and Gauri. However, he seeks time to produce the relevant documents on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that before the Committee the petitioner has not produced the documents of the year 1944 on which the Court has placed reliance in Gauri's case (supra). He further submitted that in the case of Ku. Gauri Vinay Palliwar (supra), the aspect of the entry 'Telanga and Telangu' has not been dealt with. 6. It is seen from the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 that Telanga and Telangu entry falls into Nomadic Tribes and not under the Scheduled Tribes. The documents placed on record are of the post-constitutional era and not of a pre-constitutional era on which the petitioner sought to rely. 7. The learned counsel would further urge that by filing Civil Application (W) No. 1020 of 2022, the petitioner is placing on record the copy of the Register of Death maintained by the Municipal Corporation of her paternal cousin grandfather, wherein, the entry depicts of the year 1918, however, in the said document, the name of the person is not clearly reflected as Balanna. Moreover, he has not produced the said document before the Committee in support of her claim. Moreover, he has not produced the said document before the Committee in support of her claim. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be taken into consideration while determining the claim of the petitioner. 8. Having considered the same and as the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for time to place on record the relevant document, by way of last chance, we post the matter for further consideration on 27.03.2024. By that time, the petitioner is to place on record relevant documents in support of her claim." 7. Despite the said order, the petitioner failed to produce any relevant documents on record to show that Gauri- petitioner in Writ Petition No.3871/2023 is related to her. None of the documents produced on record show their relationship with Gauri. Though by filling Civil Application (N) No. 3563/2023 it is claimed that Vinay Palliwar is the son of Krushnanand i.e. paternal cousin uncle of the petitioner is in her relation then certainly she would have produced the documents in that regard before this Court. Non-production of the documents leads to drawing an adverse inference that Gauri is not in relation with the petitioner. Besides, in the family tree, she does not mention the name of Gauri or her father Vinay nor in her explanation or statement she speaks anything about her. However, she has stated that none of the family members obtained a validity certificate till that date. 8. Secondly, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in the case of Gauri aspects of entry 'Telanga' and 'Telangu' have not been dealt with. This falls into the NT-C category which can be seen from the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950. Thus, it appears that the judgment in the case of Gauri is not helpful for the petitioner in support of her claim. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order argued, that the petitioner produced as many as 19 documents in support of her claim. The oldest document is from the year 1957 pertains to her cousin uncle, which depicts his caste as 'Mannewar', and other documents which are subsequent to this document also show the caste of the petitioner or his relatives as 'Mannewar'. There are consistencies about the entry of 'Mannewar' caste in those documents. The oldest document is from the year 1957 pertains to her cousin uncle, which depicts his caste as 'Mannewar', and other documents which are subsequent to this document also show the caste of the petitioner or his relatives as 'Mannewar'. There are consistencies about the entry of 'Mannewar' caste in those documents. Therefore, he contended that two adverse entries of the years 1941 and 1948 noticed by the Vigilance Cell Department as 'Telanga' and 'Telangu' are not sufficient to discard the petitioner's claim that she belonged to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). He further urged that 'Telanga' has to be read as 'Telugu' or in the alternative, even if, it is accepted that 'Telanga' is an entry carried out in the year 2014 in the "Nomadic Tribes-C" category, the Court is required to consider the claim of the petitioner as was existing on the date when the caste certificate was issued. 10. He further claims that the Committee has ignored the law laid down in the case of the State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another, reported in 2007(1) SCC 80 . He would urge that from the aforesaid judgment it is amply clear that even if, there are no documents of the Pre-Independence era, still the petitioner can lodge a claim for issuance of a validity certificate. In addition, he contends that- the Committee should have traveled the extra mile, thereby looking to the caste of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe') and should have granted the claim as prayed. 11. As against above, the contentions of the Assi. Govt. Pleader is that the entries for the years 1941 and 1948 pertain to a paternal aunt and cousin paternal aunt of the petitioner showing that they belong to the 'Telanga' or 'Telangu' caste. The said entries are required to be interpreted, as it is and the Committee is not empowered to interpret the said entries. According to her, the entry 'Telanga' is recognized as 'NT-C' the 'Telanga' being an independent caste cannot be said that it supports the claim of the petitioner. 12. It is further claimed that the 'Telanga' entry is taken as it is, then the said entry does not support the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Lastly, she submitted, that the facts, in this case, are similar to the case of Ku. 12. It is further claimed that the 'Telanga' entry is taken as it is, then the said entry does not support the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Lastly, she submitted, that the facts, in this case, are similar to the case of Ku. Arti Tupparwar vs. the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others (Writ Petition No.2628/2018 decided on 30- 01-2024). Therefore, this case is covered by the said judgment. That being so, a prayer is made for rejection of the petition. 13. We have appreciated the submissions. Perused the impugned order and record. 14. It is evident that during the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell found two documents having adverse entries of the caste 'Telanga' and 'Telangu'. The said documents are of the years 1941 and 1948. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation in that regard. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 12-03-2018 and gave her statement to it. During the statement she stated, that their language is 'Telugu' therefore the people identified them as 'Telangi', and in all the documents their caste was mentioned as 'Telangi' or 'Telangu'. She has not disputed the entries of 1941 and 1948 regarding her cousin paternal aunt. The said entries categorically denote that the caste of the paternal aunt and cousin paternal aunt was mentioned as 'Telanga' and 'Telangu'. 15. It is to be noted that the documents produced before the Committee are post-constitutional era and Vigilance Cell found two documents from the pre-constitutional era pertain to her ancestors. Also, it is a settled principle of law that a person gets his caste by birth. As such, pre-Independence era entries about paternal aunt and cousin paternal aunt of the petitioner namely; Kamal and Leela, wherein their caste were recorded as 'Telanga' and 'Telangu', the petitioner owes an explanation, but the petitioner has failed to furnish the same. Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, 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 (for short, 'the said Act'), casts a burden on the petitioner to prove that the aforesaid entries are incorrect or that she belongs to Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). The fact remains that the petitioner has failed to discharge such a burden. 16. The fact remains that the petitioner has failed to discharge such a burden. 16. The adverse entries in relation to paternal aunt and cousin paternal aunt along with the Vigilance Cell report were served on the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim or failed to forward a convincing explanation to that effect. Also, she does not controvert the said entries. That being so, the aforesaid evidence of pre- pre- constitutional era collected by the Vigilance Cell has more evidentiary value and the same can be safely relied on while considering her tribe's claim. 17. By an order dated 14-03-2024, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate her claim, but she failed to produce any relevant documents on record to substantiate her claim that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). As such, from the available documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged her burden as provided under Section 8 of the Act thereby proving that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). 18. As far as the satisfaction of the affinity test is concerned, the record depicts that the Vigilance Cell has recorded the statement of the petitioner on 12-03-2018, wherein she has not disputed two documents found by the Vigilance Cell. She stated that her mother tongue is 'Telugu' and they speak 'Telugu' language so the caste of her ancestor was mentioned as Telanga. She is not aware of Panchayat Pramukh and the traditional dances. She further categorically stated that she does not possess documents prior to 1950 showing their cate as 'Mannewar'. 19. Moreover, the committee in tabular form has dealt with the applicability of the affinity test, customs, and traditions followed by the petitioner and has recorded a finding that the entries in the documents do not show the analogy about the claim of the petitioner that she belonging to the 'Mannewar', (Scheduled Tribe). No fault has been noticed in the applicability of the affinity test. 20. Having considered the aforesaid discussion and documents on record it reveals, that the petitioner in support of her claim has relied on 19 documents from the period 1957 onward wherein the caste of her ancestors was shown as 'Mannewar'. No fault has been noticed in the applicability of the affinity test. 20. Having considered the aforesaid discussion and documents on record it reveals, that the petitioner in support of her claim has relied on 19 documents from the period 1957 onward wherein the caste of her ancestors was shown as 'Mannewar'. However, two adverse entries found by the Vigilance Cell pertain to a paternal aunt and cousin paternal aunt of the years 1941 and 1948 which depict their caste as ' Telanga' and 'Telangu', said entries are prior to all the above entries and pre- Constitutional era, therefore those documents have greater probative value than the subsequent documents. Moreover, the said entries are not disputed by the petitioner. Furthermore, it is seen from the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950; that caste 'Telanga' is recognized as NT-C, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid documents/ entries. 21. In this background, in our view, the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Rather the Committee, in our opinion, is justified in recording the finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). That being so, no case for causing interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out by the petitioner. As such, there is no substance in the petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. 22. Rule is discharged.