Bombay High Court
Balayya Balraj Hiralal Pagade vs The State Of Mah & 2 Others on 4 April, 2016
Author: B.P.Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P.Dharmadhikari, P.N. Deshmukh
Judgment wp4432.03
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4432 OF 2003.
PETITIONER : ig Balayya alias Balraj s/o Hiralal Pagade
(Pagale), Aged about 45 years, Occupation
- Service, resident of Near Krushna Mandir,
Malipura, Akola, Taluq and District Akola.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1.State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.The Collector, Akola, Taluq and District
Akola.
3.Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of Tribe Claims, Amravati, Taluq and
District Amravati.
4.Berar General Education Society, Akola,
through its President, c/o. Sitabai Arts
College, Akola, Taluq and District Ako.a.
5.Sitabai Arts College, Akola, through its
Principal, Civil Lines, Akola, Taluq and
District Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 :::
Judgment wp4432.03
2
-----------------------
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 Served.
-----------------------
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
ig & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J).
Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
None appears for respondent nos. 4 and 5 though served.
2. The petitioner, who is serving with respondent nos. 4 and 5 has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the respondent no.3 Committee, invalidating his caste claim as belonging to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter on 17.11.2003, directed ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 ::: Judgment wp4432.03 3 maintenance of status-quo. That interim order continues to operate even today and hence, petitioner continues to be in the employment of respondent nos. 4 and 5.
3. Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed on record old document of April 1941, showing that caste of father of petitioner has been recorded as 'Mannewar'. He also points out a document dated 20.06.1924 which records caste as 'Telgu Mannewar' in case of his great grand-father. In the light of these two un-disputed documents, appreciation of other material on record is criticized by him. By placing reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at 2004 (0) BCI 384 (Anil Ramdas Mede .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), he submits that vigilance report ought to have been ignored, as held in that judgment, there is no caste by name 'Telgu Mannewar' and 'Telgu' is a language.
4. To drive home importance of said documents, he has drawn support from Division Bench judgments reported at 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 471 (Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde .vrs. State of ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 ::: Judgment wp4432.03 4 Maharashtra and others) and 2009 (Supp) B.C.R. 898 (Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others).
5. Learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand states that 'Munnewar Telgu' or 'Munnewar' are different caste recognized as Other Backward Classes in State of Maharashtra. He further submits that name of Tribe 'Mannewar' is included at Sr.No.18 of Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1949, where other tribes like Gond, Rajgond, Pradhan appear. He therefore, states that Mannewar must also exhibit affinity with Gond Tribe. The Committee has therefore applied the affinity test and found that petitioner failed to establish any affinity. He has taken us through the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.
6. The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee does not find any fault with the documents dated 20.06.1924. It is an extract of birth register of Mouza Kumbhari, Taluq Akola, District Akola, and there a son is shown to be born to one Narayan Balanna Telgu Mannewar. The other document is issued by the Municipal Council, Akola and it is a certificate of birth. Date of registration of said birth ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 ::: Judgment wp4432.03 5 is mentioned as 08.04.1941, while date of birth is 03.04.1941.
Name of father is shown as Balaiyya Mutaiyya Pagade Mannewar.
These documents are verified by the Vigilance Cell and it has not come across any interpolation or tampering with it.
7. Similarly, the petitioner has pointed out a communication dated 10.02.1997, where a request was made to include name of Sukhdeo Shankar in the list of Scheduled Tribe. The Manager of Railway Board has informed his subordinate that the service book of Sukhdeo needed to be corrected accordingly. Vigilance Cell has verified the caste of Sukhdeo and found that it is recorded as "Telgu"
8. Division Bench of this Court in judgment in case of Anil Ramdas Mede .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), in paragraph no.7 noted that Telgu is not a caste, but, official language declared under VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. In said judgment the Division Bench has also in the light of undisputed documents found it not proper to rely upon the vigilance cell report.
9. In Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde .vrs. State of Maharashtra ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 ::: Judgment wp4432.03 6 and others (supra), the entry relating to Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur, Ma Thakar has been looked into and the Division Bench has found that the Tribe Thakur, throughout the State of Maharashtra has to be treated as Scheduled Tribe and no enquiry can be held or evidence led to tinker with the Presidential order to find out whether a particular Thakur is covered by Thakur community, included in Entry No.44 of the said Schedule. Other Division Bench in judgment in case of Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad .vrs.
State of Maharashtra and others (supra), in paragraph no.9 (2nd) found that the documents whether post or pre-Constitution or Presidential or State Notifications, can be considered along with the oral evidence.
10. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that after considering the documents, the Scrutiny Committee has looked into the vigilance cell report and then applied the affinity test. It has not found that two old documents do not carry mention of caste.
11. However, as two old documents i.e. of 20.06.1924 and 08.04.1941 are found to be genuine, it is apparent that caste as ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 ::: Judgment wp4432.03 7 recorded therein deserves to be given precedence. The finding that the petitioner does not belong to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe therefore, is, unsustainable. The Committee in present matter has not recorded that Telgu Mannewar or then Mannewar is also a caste or Tribe and it is available in the upper strata of the society.
12. In this situation, in present facts and in the light of the aforesaid two old documents, we are unable to sustain the order dated 25.07.2003, passed by the respondent no.3 Scrutiny Committee. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondent- Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate as "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe in favour of the petitioner.
13. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:55:38 :::