Bombay High Court
Suresh Kumar Balkrishna Naidu vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 4 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 304, (2019) 5 MAH LJ 572
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande, S.M. Modak
1
wp4316.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4316 of 2017
Shri Suresh Kumar Balkrishna Naidu,
Aged about 67 years,
Occupation - Nil,
R/o Saptagiri Apartment,
JN/3/12/13, Sector-9,
Vashi-Navi Mumbai-400703. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
through its Deputy Director and
Member Secretary, having office at
Irwin Chowk, Morshi Road,
Amravati. ... Respondents
Shri A.I. Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms T.H. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & S.M. Modak, JJ.
Dated : 4th April, 2019
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 03:33:03 :::
2
wp4316.17.odt
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 19-12-2016 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, invalidating the claim of the
petitioner for 'Mannewar Scheduled Tribe', which is an entry at Serial
No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
3. Before the Committee, the petitioner filed twenty-seven
documents in support of his claim for 'Mannewar Scheduled Tribe',
whereas the Police Vigilance Cell could secure six documents in
relation to the blood relatives of the petitioner. The claim is rejected
on the ground that in the document of 25-5-1928, which is the birth
extract in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner, the caste is
not mentioned; in the admission extract in the name of Laxminarayan
Rajaiyya, the real uncle of the petitioner, the caste is mentioned as
'Telgu Mannewar' on 9-7-1929; and in the school leaving certificate in
the name of Suryaprakash V. Rajaiyya, the another uncle of the
petitioner, the caste is mentioned as 'Mannewaram' on 13-7-1936. In
some of the documents, the caste is referred to as 'Naidu' or 'Telgu' or
'Telangi'.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 03:33:03 :::
3
wp4316.17.odt
4. We find that in the admission extract of Laxminarayan Rajaiyya,
the caste entry was 'Telgu Mannewar' on 9-7-1929. Prefix 'Telgu' to
'Mannewar' in the entry merely indicates the language and not the
caste. In respect of the entry in the school leaving certificate of
Suraprakash Rajaiyya, the caste is mentioned as 'Mannewaram' on
13-7-1936. Undisputedly, 'Mannewaram' is not at all a tribe or a
sub-tribe or a sub-caste in existence. The document has to be,
therefore, considered as indicating the tribe name of 'Mannewar'.
There is another entry in the name of Raghavendra Balkisan, the real
brother of the petitioner, in the school leaving certificate showing his
caste as 'Mannewar' on 21-7-1959. Apart from this, there are several
other entries subsequent to 1950 indicating the caste of the blood
relatives as 'Mannewar'. We, therefore, find that the Committee was
wrong in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for 'Mannewar Scheduled
Tribe'. Thus, the petitioner has established his case for 'Mannewar
Scheduled Tribe'. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be
sustained.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed, and the following order is
passed :
:ORDER:
1. The order dated 19-12-2016 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 03:33:03 ::: 4 wp4316.17.odt rejecting the claim of the petitioner for 'Mannewar Scheduled Tribe', is hereby quashed and set aside.
2. It is held that the petitioner has established his claim for 'Mannewar Scheduled Tribe', which is at Serial No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and accordingly we direct the Committee to issue a validity certificate in the name of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(S.M. Modak, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Lanjewar, PS ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2019 03:33:03 :::