Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

unsustainable.

5. Shri N.C. Phadnis, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7/2014 had read out the judgment delivered at Bombay on 22.12.2017 (22.11.2017) in case of Motilal Namdeo Pawar .Vrs. Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee (supra), particularly paragraph nos. 1, 12 and 16. He argues that this judgment clinches the controversy.

6. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 564/2009, submits that petitioner did not get any effective opportunity as she was unwell. Total 22 documents were relied upon and though all of them are genuine, the affinity test has been resorted to. Customs and traits brought on record have been brushed aside as bookish knowledge and erroneously "area restriction" has been used to the prejudice of the petitioner. He submits that as per the information received by petitioner on 01.07.2006, the Scrutiny Committee does not have authentic traits or customs of Thakur Scheduled Tribe to transparently apply affinity test.

24. Without prejudice, it is submitted that if this court is inclined to permit such documents/validity on record, the vigilance enquiry into such documents cannot be avoided, and therefore, Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.

remand is the only solution.

25. Before proceeding further, it will be worthwhile to mention that the petitioners bank upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7/2014 Motilal Namdeo Pawar .Vrs. Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee. They have relied upon several other judgments which takes similar view. Respondents rely upon Division Bench judgment delivered at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 10123/2010 and others dated 04.05.2018 (Monika d/o Satish Thakur, Chetan s/o Satishchandra Thakur .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others). This judgment is reported at 2018 Law Suit (Bombay) 816. They point out that after considering the judgments relied upon by petitioners and other judgments which take note of existence of Upper Caste Thakur, judgment in case of Monika (supra), must be accepted as laying down the law which must be held to be binding. Their effort is to demonstrate that judgment in case of Motilal Pawar (supra), is on facts, does not lay down law, and therefore, is not a precedent at all.

Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.

58. Judgment in Motilal Namdeo Pawar .vrs. Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee (supra) turns mostly on facts of the matter and errors by the Scrutiny Committee which are found sufficient to award validity. In other words, it does not lay down a law applicable in controversies like present one. Though the School records of Motilal mentioned the caste as "Hindu Thakur" or Thakur, he was not fitting in entry 44 of ST Order and could not establish affinity or linkage with it. Hence on 4.3.1989, the Scrutiny Committee canceled his caste certificate. The Division Bench mostly points out faulty consideration of facts by the Committee. The stereotype format of order is seen as routine thereby indicating mechanical application of mind. That Committee formulated usual three points. This Court looks into its findings on documents and notes that the Committee by relying on para 8 in judgment of the High Court in WP 1953 of 2007 (Dipika Subhash More vs. State) concludes that Thakurs exist in upper-castes like Kshatriya,Rajput,Sindhi,Maratha, Brahmins etc. Said Scrutiny Committee therefore found recourse to affinity crucial. Committee also referred to WP 2791 of 2011 where the Aurangabad Bench observed similarly. Validity dated 28.8.2000 Judgment wp4198.00 & ors.

Caste is inherited from father. In paragraph no.27, there is reference to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raju Ramsingh Vasave .vrs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar ((2009) 1 Mh.L.J. 1) to take note that principles of res-judicata do not apply. Judgment in case of Pournima Pawar (supra), is again reiterated for this purpose. Judgment in case of Motilal Namdeo Pawar .vrs. Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee (supra), is looked into in paragraph no.29, and it is found that there the Tribal Validity Certificate was issued in favour of paternal relative. The Division Bench goes through various other judgments and in paragraph no.35, 4, validity certificates issued in favour of siblings of petitioner are looked into. It is found that same were without satisfaction of the Scrutiny Committee and hence, the Committee had no option but, to consider whether the petitioner belongs to non tribal group or not. Its observations in paragraph no.35 are as under :