Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner claims to belong to Dhodia tribe which is recognized as a scheduled tribe pursuant to issuance of the Presidential Notification under Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India both in the State of Gujarat as also in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner's father was born on 2-6-1953 at village Pitha, Taluka Chikhali, District Valsad now in State of Gujarat. The petitioner's father was employed with the Western Railway since 23-1-1976. The petitioner was born on 15-8-1979 at village Pitha, Valsad in the State of Gujarat. Petitioner's and his father's caste is shown as "Hindu Dhodia". It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted certificate of domicile on 4-2-1997 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai setting out that the petitioner is a domicile of State of Maharashtra. The petitioner sought admission to the Engineering degree course and as such he moved respondent No. 2 which is the Tribe scrutiny committee for validating his tribe certificate. The Committee, however, was pleased to invalidate the certificate holding that the petitioner is a migrant from the State of Gujarat to the State of Maharashtra and therefore, not entitled to the benefits in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner challenged the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4897 of 1997. The Petition was admitted and interim relief was granted. Consequent thereupon the petitioner completed the B.E. degree course from the University of Mumbai in the year 2004. The Writ petition came up for hearing and was disposed of by order dated 14-10-2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Division Bench was pleased to hold that for deciding the issue as to whether the petitioner is migrant from the State of Gujarat to the State of Maharashtra, what is relevant is the date of notification of the Presidential Order under which the petitioner claims to belong to such caste/tribe. In view of that, the order dated 25-8-1997 was set aside and the second respondent committee was directed to consider the caste claim of the petitioner on merits, without raising objection that the petitioner's family has migrated from Gujarat. The respondent No. 2 committee was directed to consider the caste claim within the period of six months from 14-10-2004.

5. The principal contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel is that after this Court in Writ Petition No. 4897 of 1997 by its judgment dated 14-10-2004 had remanded the matter back to the committee to consider the case of the petitioner on merits without raising the objection that the petitioner's family is migrant from Valsad, the Committee acted without jurisdiction and clearly in violation of the order of this Court when it considered that issue afresh and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Presidential Order was issued on 10-8-1950 when there was no state of Maharashtra in existence but the old Bombay State. The petitioner's ordinary place of residence was within the jurisdiction of old Bombay State and as such for all purposes, the petitioner would be entitled to protection in the State of Maharashtra.

Part IV was substituted by inserting Part IV-Gujarat. The notified Schedule Tribes in the State of Gujarat are set out therein. Part VIIA is for Maharashtra and notified Scheduled tribes in the State of Maharashtra are set out therein.

8. Before we deal with the effect of the provisions of the Constitution, Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the presidential order, 1950 which was amended by the Bombay State Reorganization Act, let us consider the judgments which were cited before us, by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to contend that it was not open to the committee considering the judgment of this Court in Shri Bankimchandra Makanbhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided on 14th October, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 4897 of 1997 to go into the issue that the petitioners family had migrated from Valsad. The learned Division Bench as it appears, has proceeded on the footing that Valsad District was part of the erstwhile State of Bombay and if therefore, a person was resident in the state of Bombay on the date of the Presidential Order, such a person would be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Maharashtra. If that tribe was also notified in the State of Maharashtra and what is to be taken into account is the date of the Presidential Order, which is 10-8-1950.

Similarly our attention was invited to the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Writ petition No. 2736 of 1998 in the case of Kum. Rachana Shashikant Champaneri v. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and Ors. decided on 18-6-1998. That was an ex parte judgment as can be seen from the appearance from the copy of the judgment filed before this Court. In that case, the petitioners' father was born in Valsad in 1947. He migrated to Bombay in 1965. The petitioner was born in Bombay on 14-11-1980. The caste was Mochi which has been notified as scheduled caste by the Presidential Order issued on 10-8-1950. On that date, Valsad was part of the State of Bombay. The learned Division Bench proceeded to observe that the fact that Valsad formed part of State of Gujarat with effect from 1-5-1960 will not deprive the petitioners' father and petitioner from the benefits of the aforesaid Presidential Order dated 10-8-1950. Again reference was made to the judgment of the Action Committee (supra). From that it appears that this Court held that the relevant date for considering the benefits is the date of the Presidential Order.