Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mahesh Ganesh Jamadar And Rushikesh ... vs Sub Divisional Officer Kallam ... on 23 January, 2017

Author: S. V. Gangapurwala

Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala

                                                                                      36.odt
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 2017




                                                                              
    1. Mahesh Ganesh Jamadar
       Age 16 years, Occu: Education,




                                                      
       R/o Pathardi Tq. Kallam, 
       Dist. Osmanabad.

    2. Rushikesh Ganesh Jamadar                        ... Petitioners 




                                                     
       Age  22 years,Occu: Education,
       R/o Pathardi Tq. Kallam, 
       Dist. Osmanabad.




                                               
           Both petitioners are 
           represented through father:
                                  
           Shri Ganesh tukram jamadar
           Age 47 Years, Occu: Service
           R/o Pathardi Tq. Kallam
                                 
           Dist. Osmanabad. 

           VERSUS

    1. The Sub Divisional Officer,
      

       Kallam, Tqluka Kallam
       District Osmanabad
   



    2. Scheduled Tribe  Certificate 
       Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad 
       Division, Aurangabad,





       Through its Member Secretary


    Mr. Sagar S. Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner,
    Mr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for the State.





                                        CORAM   :  S. V. GANGAPURWALA & 
                                                    K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                         DATE   :   23rd January, 2017


    JUDGMENT:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:54:23 :::

36.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The petitioners had applied for issuance of tribe certificate of Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The said application is rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioners is dismissed by the Committee. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

4. Mr. Phatale, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the documents, which are referred to in the order of the Committee are not in respect of the relatives of the present petitioners but are of third persons. The father of the petitioners has been issued the tribe certificate as per orders of this court as belonging to Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe.

The school record of the petitioners shows the caste as Koli Mahadeo. School record of the father of the petitioner also shows caste as Koli Mahadeo. Even the service book of the petitioner's father mentions caste as Koli Mahadeo. Only on the basis of the documents of some other persons collected by the Vigilance, Tribe Certificate is denied to the petitioners.

5. Mr. Patil, the learned AGP states that the 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:54:23 :::

36.odt committee has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners by dismissing the appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions.

7. It is trite that at the time of issuance of tribe certificate, the standard of proof required would not be the same as required while obtaining the validity certificate, prima facie enquiry, though is required to be made. Even after the tribe certificate is issued, the documents will have to undergo acid test during the validation proceedings. In the present matter, father of the petitioner has been issued tribe certificate of Koli Mahadeo as per directions of this Court. The school record of the petitioners and their father shows the caste being recorded as Koli Mahadeo.

The petitioners states that the documents which were referred by the Committee are not in respect of their relatives.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts commutatively, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

9. Respondent No.1 Sub Divisional Officer, Kallam shall issue Tribe Certificate to the petitioners as 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:54:23 :::

36.odt belonging to "Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe. The same certainly will have to under go validation proceedings.

10. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2017 00:54:23 :::