Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with sub section (2) of section (7) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 ('Act'), the petitioners are taking exception to the 2 WP / 7454 / 2024 judgment and order of respondent no. 2 - Scrutiny Committee constituted under that Act, refusing to validate their 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe certificates.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioners would take us through the papers and would submit that the observations and the conclusions of the committee are perverse and arbitrary. Isolated contrary entries have been resorted to as against voluminous favourable record. Even pre-constitutional record of petitioners' great grandfather Kerba Mahadu of 1347 Fasli describing him as 'Koli Mahadev' in the pahani patrak has been lightly discarded. There was no sufficient and cogent reason for the committee to discard such pre- constitutional record. The original entry is in Modi script and has been duly translated by a person who had also filed affidavit. The committee itself did not call for the record and did not verify the original and has clearly relied upon the perception of the vigilance officer. Even if he had some reservations that could not have been the basis for the committee to reach any conclusion. This is abdication of the duty particularly in such serious matters. The committee has not disputed genuineness of the record from the Tehsil office of Mudhol which is now in Nirmal district of Telangana state. The inference of the committee based on the perception of the vigilance officer regarding 'Koli Mahadev' entry having been made at a later point of time and is bold 3 WP / 7454 / 2024 as compared to the other entries, is factually incorrect. Correct appreciation of this pre-constitutional record would outweigh any other subsequent contrary record, even if the committee has referred to couple of such entries of cousin grandfather Maroti Kerba Bhimbarwad and father Bharat Naga Bhimbarwad of the year 1964 and 1972, respectively.

7. After going through this coloured photocopy of the pahani patrak which was maintained in Modi script and about translation of which there is no dispute, we have a strong reservation about the 5 WP / 7454 / 2024 observation of the vigilance officer and even that of respondent no. 2 - scrutiny committee in the order under challenge. We cannot and we do not subscribe to the inference and the observation of the vigilance officer as well as the committee. As against the relevant entry in respect of survey no. 3, the word 'Koli Mahadev' is appearing below the name of the petitioners' great grandfather Kerba wald Mahadu. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that these words 'Koli Mahadev', are in dark ink as compared to the remaining portion of this very entry in respect of survey no. 3 in different columns. The observation and conclusion of the committee in spite of the coloured photocopy being available to it, clearly shows that it has blindly relied upon the observation of the vigilance officer rather than forming its own opinion to verify it in juxtaposition to the photocopy of the original entry. Had it done so, we have no manner of doubt that it would not have subscribed to the observation of the vigilance officer.