Bombay High Court
Kunda Vishwanath Ghodmare vs Committee For Scrutiny And ... on 18 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2001BOM150, 2001(3)BOMCR744, 2001(1)MHLJ557, AIR 2001 BOMBAY 150, (2001) 1 MAH LJ 557, (2001) 2 MAHLR 592, (2001) 2 ALLMR 211 (BOM), (2001) 3 BOM CR 744
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar
ORDER A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Rule. By consent, heard both the sides finally.
2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims dated 28th March, 2000, invalidating the caste claim set up by the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe of 'Mana' community which is the sub-tribe of 'Gond'.
3. The only question argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the documents produced by the candidate in support of the caste claim indicate that the candidate belongs to Mana community, it is not open for the Scrutiny Committee to make any further enquiry, but to accept the candidate as belonging to Gond tribe which is Scheduled Tribe. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court . He has relied on paragraph Nos. 18 and 20 of the said decision, which read thus :
"18. These judgments have no doubt that the Scheduled Castes Order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or evidence let in to determine whether or not some particular community falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the Scheduled Castes Order, except as contemplated by Article 341, is valid."
"20. Learned counsel for the State relied upon the decision in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar, referred to in Paragraph 15 of the judgment in Srish Kumar Choudhury case for the view taken there was that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean. In paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment in Srish Kumar Choudhury case the Constitution Bench judgments referred to above are discussed, as also two other judgments taking the same view. Then, in paragraph 14, the judgments of this Court in the case of Dina v. Narayan Singh (1968) 38 Ele LR 212 (SC) and Bhaiya Ram Murida v. Anirudh Patar are referred to and it is stated that both were rendered by the same Bench of two learned Judges, Paragraph 14 goes on to set out the substance of the decision in Dina case and paragraph 15 sets out the substance of the decision in Bhaiya Ram case. In paragraph 16 it is said, "These authorities clearly indicate, therefore, that the entries in the Presidential Order have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and admissibility of evidence is confined within the limitations indicated. It is, however, not open to the Court to make any addition or substraction from the Presidential Order". There is, therefore, no doubt that the Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury case accepted and followed, as it was bound to do, the Constitution Bench judgments and not the two-Judge (Bench) judgments in the Dina and Bhaiya Ram Munda cases."
On the basis of the abovesaid observations in the aforesaid decision, it is contended that it was not open to the Scrutiny Committee to make any enquiry whatsoever, including the enquiry as to whether the petitioner belongs to Maria Community which has affinity to Gond tribe, but it is obligatory on the Committee to accept the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Committee has argued that whether the candidate belongs to Mana Community, which has affinity with the "Gond" tribe, is a question of fact, which, necessarily will have to be answered by the Committee before bestowing the candidate with the status of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court , particularly paragraph Nos. 11 and 16 of the said decision. It is pointed out that the contention which is raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present case, was raised even before the Apex Court in the said case and the same has been negatived by the Apex Court in para 11 of the aforesaid decision.
5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am inclined to accept the stand taken by the respondents. In the case , similar contention was raised before the Apex Court, as would appear from paragraph 11 of the decision. The stand taken was that a person belonging to any "Mana Community" should be treated as a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe even though it had no affinity with the "Gond" (ribe. This contention has been specifically rejected by the Apex Court. In the circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that it is enough for the candidate to show that he belongs to Mana community without showing further that Mana community to which he belongs, has affinity with the "Gond" tribe. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner , with respect, is being misread by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue which arises for consideration in the present case is entirely different. No doubt, in the said decision, the Apex Court has said that the Scheduled Castes Order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held and evidence let in to determine whether or not some particular community falls within it or outside it. The said observations of the Apex Court are made in totally different context and not the one which would arise in the present case. On the other hand, the decision of the Apex Court , applies on all fours to the facts of the present case.
6. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that merely because the petitioner placed material on record to show that he belongs to "Mana" community was not enough but it was imperative on him to place on record further evidence that "Mana" community to which he belongs, has affinity with "Gond" tribe. It is only then that the petitioner can be treated as if belonging to Scheduled Tribe being sub-tribe of "Gond", namely being "Mana" community, which has affinity with "Gond" tribe.
7. No other point has been argued. Consequently, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to be affirmed as no Infirmity in the said order has been brought to the notice of this Court.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.