Bombay High Court
Sakshi Nanasaheb Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 July, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:15304-DB
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5638 OF 2024
Sakshi Nanasaheb Koli
Age: 20 years, Occu.: Student,
R/o. Kasti Bk. Tq. Lohara,
Dist. Dharashiv. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department
(Social Justice Department),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Aurangabad,
Add - beside CIDCO Bus stand,
CIDCO, Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
Mr. A.B. Kale i/by Mr. Mohanish V. Thoart, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondents/State.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P BRAHME, JJ.
:
RESERVED ON 16 JULY 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JULY 2024
JUDGMENT [Per Shailesh P. Brahme J.] :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of the parties heard finally.
2. Petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated
20.05.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee,
[ 1]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
confiscating and invalidating tribe certificate of scheduled tribe,
Koli Mahadev. The Scrutiny Committee discarded old fasli entries
of Yashwanta Daji and Shamrao Yashwant Koli alleging
manipulation. It is held that pre-indepedence record was not
produced. The contrary entries of the relatives of the petitioner
were considered for invalidating the claim. The place of residence
of the petitioner and his forefathers is found to be incompatible
with the tribe claim. The affinity test is held to be against the
petitioner. Lastly, validity certificate of Venkat Shamrao Koli, real
uncle of the petitioner is held to be unreliable.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.B. Kale submits
that after order of remand passed by High Court in Writ Petition
No.1164/2023, petitioner submitted application on 14.03.2023
before the Committee producing old documents so as to have
vigilance inquiry. Only two documents were referred to the
vigilance cell for inquiry and remaining documents having
probative value were excluded without any reason. He would
submit that there is fasli record supporting the petitioner which
has been discarded without sound reasons.
4. He would submit that petitioner's uncle Venkat Shamrao
Koli was issued with validity certificate by relying upon validity
certificate of Satish Limbaji Koli. There was vigilance inquiry
conducted in the matter of Venkat Shamrao Koli and by a
reasoned order, he was issued with validity certificate which
should enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The selfsame record
was already scrutinized. Learned Counsel refers to judgment in
[ 2]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
the matter of Aishwarya Shesharao Kabade and Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.111/2021. He
tenders on record coloured photocopies of old revenue entry and
birth record of Shamrao Yashwanta to show that there is no
manipulation.
5. Per contra, learned AGP supports impugned judgment and
order. In support of his submission, original papers of petitioner,
her brother Kunal and their father Nanasaheb are produced on
record. Learned AGP submits that the Scrutiny Committee is
justified in rejecting the claim, considering contrary entries and
manipulation in the record. After remand, fresh inquiry was
conducted on the basis of which old fasli documents are
discarded. He would further submit that the validity certificate of
Venkat is suspicious and procured by suppressing material facts
and incompatible genealogies.
6. Learned AGP informs that the Committee has decided to
reopen validity of Venkat Shamrao Koli. A reliance is placed on
judgment of High Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors., 2023 SCC Online SC 326. It is further informed that the
documents which are contended to be produced vide application
dated 14.03.2023 by the petitioner before the Committee, are
not found in the record.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
have gone through relevant record which was made available by
[ 3]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
both the sides. Petitioner's claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny
Committee on 20.09.2023, on earlier occasion. Being aggrieved
Writ Petition No.2264/2023 was preferred in the High Court.
During the course of arguments, old fasli record was tendered
across the bar and due to that matter was remitted to the
Scrutiny Committee for consideration afresh with a liberty to the
petitioner to produce additional documents. Impugned judgment
and order was passed on 20.05.2024.
8. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 14.03.2023
couple of documents were produced before the Committee
alongwith application and there is acknowledgment of the office
of the Committee for having received application. This application
was tendered before earlier decision by the Committee was
rendered on 20.09.2023. Application dated 14.03.2023 was not
submitted after order of remand passed by this Court on
03.11.2023. There is no substance in the submission of the
petitioner that the documents produced with the application
dated 14.03.2023 were not scrutinized.
9. Petitioner relies on the revenue record of Yashwant Daji Koli
of 1358 (1948) fasli and birth record of Yashwant Shamrao Koli
which is of 1343 (1933). These documents were referred to the
vigilance inquiry and the report is received in respect of birth
entry of Shamrao Yashwant of 1343 fasli. It is reported that word
'Koli Mahadev' appears in the dark letters. We have gone through
the report and coloured photocopies of extract of entry no.10
which is in Modi script. We do not notice any change of ink or
[ 4]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
dark letters so as to suspect any manipulation. The Vigilance
Officer or the Committee could have solicited opinion of
handwriting expert. Without resorting to due verification, a
finding is recorded, castigating the entry to be manipulated
which is perversity and arbitrariness.
10. So far as revenue entry of Yashwant Daji Koli of fasli 1358
is concerned, we do not find that there is any report submitted
by revenue authority or Vigilance Officer regarding genuineness
of the entry. The petitioner produced photocopies of revenue
entries of Shamrao Yashwant Koli, Bapu Daji Koli which were not
referred to vigilance enquiry. The Committee is bold enough to
record that word 'Koli Mahadev' has been incorporated in
different handwriting and ink, but this finding is unsupported by
any material. This finding is also contrary to the record.
11. The findings recorded by the Committee in respect of fasli
entries of 1343 and 1358 are unsustainable. Both the entries are
of pre-independence period indicating caste as 'Koli Mahadev'.
The relationship of the petitioner with Yashwant Daji Koli and
Shamrao Yashwant Koli is not disputed. In view of law laid down
by Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Versus Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, reported in
(2012) 1 SCC 113, the entries have greater probative value and
support the claim of the petitioner.
12. Petitioner's real uncle Venkat Shamrao Koli was issued with
validity certificate which is pressed into service by the petitioner.
[ 5]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
The validity certificate of Venkat was discarded by the Scrutiny
Committee for two reasons i.e. suppression of the contrary
entries and for giving two inconsistent genealogies by way of
affidavit of selfsame affiant who is none other than validity
holder, Venkat Shamrao Koli. It is not disputed that Venkat was
issued with validity certificate after conducting vigilance inquiry.
In his case, reliance was placed on validity certificate of Satish
Limbaji Koli who happens to be descendant of Rama. In case of
Venkat, affidavit was filed by him stating relationship with
validity holder, Satish showing two sons of Daji namely Rama and
Yashwanta. Whereas in the present matter, Venkat Shamrao Koli
filed affidavit, showing two sons of Daji namely Bapu and
Yashwanta. There is no mentioned of son Rama.
13. Apparently there is inconsistency in the genealogies given
by Venkat in his own matter and in the present matter. We are of
the considered view that merely because of inconsistency in the
genealogies, we cannot jump to a conclusion that petitioner's
claim is false. The Committee has already proposed to reopen
validity of Venkat. It would pe open for the Committee to inquire
into inconsistent genealogies and fraud if any. Unless validity
certificate of Venkat is revoked, the petitioner cannot be deprived
of its benefit. We, therefore, do not approve the finding recorded
by the Committee in this regard.
14. Learned AGP seeks to rely upon the judgment in the matter
of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(supra). At this juncture, validity certificate of Venkat needs to
[ 6]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt
be followed as per law laid down in paragraph no.22.
15. In the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra),
it is held that affinity test is not a litmus test and conclusive
when there is other reliable material on record. The finding in
respect of affinity test recorded by the Scrutiny Committee is
inconsequential. The place of residence of the claimant or his
forefathers cannot be considered as a decisive factor, after area
restriction was removed in 1976. Therefore, we are not inclined
to accept the finding of the Committee in that regard.
16. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and
order is unsustainable and we pass following order :
ORDER
a. The Writ Petition is allowed.
b. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2024 is quashed and set aside.
c. The respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner for 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe.
d. The same shall be subject to the outcome of re-verification of the validity certificates of Venkat Shamrao Koli as proposed by the Scrutiny Committee.
e. Petitioner shall not claim equity.
[ 7]
953.WP-5638-2024.odt f. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL
JUDGE JUDGE
najeeb....
[ 8]