Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (respondent no. 2) which refused to validate her 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate and directed its confiscation and cancellation under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. The petitioner relied on pre-constitutional school records and birth and death records from 1906 and 1923 describing her forefathers as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli'. She argued that 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are synonymous under Entry 28 of the Presidential Order, as recognized by the government resolution dated 24-04-1985 and by this Court in Nilesh Gulab Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra. The committee, however, rejected the claim on the ground that some entries described the petitioner's relatives as 'Koli' or 'Hindu Koli' (which are special backward classes) and that some entries were interpolated. The court found that the committee had ignored the pre-constitutional records of 1906 and 1923, which had greater probative value, and had instead relied on post-constitutional entries. The court held that the committee's decision was perverse and arbitrary, as it failed to appreciate that 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are synonymous and that the pre-constitutional records consistently supported the petitioner's claim. The court quashed the committee's order and directed the committee to validate the petitioner's 'Tokre Koli' certificate within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Validation - Pre-Constitutional Records - The committee must give due weight to pre-constitutional school and birth records consistently describing the claimant's forefathers as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli', as these entries are synonymous under Entry 28 of the Presidential Order. The committee's reliance on post-constitutional entries and allegations of interpolation without proper verification is perverse. (Paras 3-6, 11-12)
B) Scheduled Tribes - Burden of Proof - Section 8 of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 - While the burden lies on the claimant to prove tribe claim, the committee must consider all relevant evidence, especially pre-constitutional records, and cannot reject the claim based on minor inconsistencies or interpolations without proper inquiry. (Paras 4, 9, 12)
C) Scheduled Tribes - Government Resolution - Government Resolution dated 24-04-1985 - The resolution expressly recognizes 'Dhor Koli', 'Tokre Koli', 'Kolcha', and 'Kolgha' as synonymous and falling under the same entry at serial no. 28 of the Presidential Order. The committee's failure to consider this resolution is a material irregularity. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate by ignoring pre-constitutional records and treating 'Dhor Koli' as inconsistent with 'Tokre Koli'.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned judgment and order of the committee, and directed the committee to validate the petitioner's 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate within four weeks.
Law Points
- Pre-constitutional records have greater probative value
- entries 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are synonymous under Presidential Order
- burden of proof under Section 8 of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001
- committee must consider all relevant evidence
- perversity in ignoring favourable pre-constitutional records.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 201
Writ Petition No. 9654 of 2019 (referred) but actual case number not mentioned
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. Sarang P. Joshi Advocate for the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Shaikh Wasif h/f. Mr. M.D. Narwadkar
The State of Maharashtra Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee rejecting the petitioner's claim for validation of her 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the committee's order and direction to validate her 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate.
Filing Reason
The committee refused to validate the petitioner's 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate and directed its confiscation and cancellation, despite pre-constitutional records describing her forefathers as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli'.
Previous Decisions
The committee passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Issues
Whether the committee erred in treating 'Dhor Koli' as inconsistent with 'Tokre Koli' despite government resolution and judicial precedent recognizing them as synonymous.
Whether the committee failed to give due weight to pre-constitutional records and relied on post-constitutional entries and alleged interpolations without proper verification.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Pre-constitutional school and birth records consistently describe forefathers as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli', which are synonymous under Entry 28 of the Presidential Order as per government resolution and this Court's decision in Nilesh Gulab Sonawane. The committee ignored these records and relied on post-constitutional entries and interpolations without proper inquiry.
Respondent: The entries 'Koli' or 'Hindu Koli' are inconsistent with 'Tokre Koli'. Some records were interpolated. The burden of proof under Section 8 of the Act was on the petitioner, and she failed to substantiate her claim.
Ratio Decidendi
Pre-constitutional records have greater probative value than post-constitutional entries. The entries 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are synonymous under Entry 28 of the Presidential Order, as recognized by government resolution and judicial precedent. The committee's failure to consider these records and its reliance on minor inconsistencies and interpolations without proper verification renders its decision perverse and arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there are pre-constitutional school record and birth and death record maintained in the ordinary course, describing the petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’.
He would submit that even in the government resolution dated 24-04-1985 while laying down guidelines, Tribal Welfare Department of the state had expressly observed that ‘Dhor Koli’ was at the lowest rung and the persons belonging to it were treated as untouchables and expressly declaring this category of community being known as ‘Dhor Koli’, ‘Tokre Koli’, ‘Kolcha’ and ‘Kolgha’.
He would submit that appreciating such state-of-affairs, even this Court in the matter of Nilesh Gulab Sonawane and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 9654 of 2019 decided on 18-10-2023) has expressly concluded that the entries as ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ could not be read as contrary or inconsistent entries.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for validation of her 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate. The committee conducted a vigilance inquiry and passed an order rejecting the claim and directing confiscation and cancellation of the certificate. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.
