Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, siblings Anuja and Aditya Damayyawar, challenged the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat, which refused to issue validity certificates recognizing them as belonging to the 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe. The committee had rejected their claim on several grounds: the Shikhmi register of 1952 was unreliable; favourable school entries of blood relations were recent (1979-1920) and motivated; vigilance enquiry revealed school records of seven relatives from 1967-1976 showing 'Munurwad' (a special backward class) instead of 'Mannervarlu' (a nomadic tribe); the petitioners failed the affinity test; and under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, absence of revenue entries of forefathers indicated non-tribal status. The petitioners argued that this was the third round of litigation; earlier, in Writ Petition No. 2685/2022, the court had remanded the matter for reconsideration, but the committee again rejected the claim. The High Court held that the committee's order was unsustainable. It noted that the affinity test is not a statutory requirement and cannot be the sole basis for rejection, especially when there is documentary evidence. The court also observed that the absence of revenue entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is not conclusive, as the Code does not mandate such entries for tribal status. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the committee to reconsider the claim afresh, without being influenced by the affinity test and the absence of revenue entries, and to pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Validity Certificate - Affinity Test - The Scrutiny Committee cannot reject a claim for scheduled tribe validity certificate solely on the ground that the petitioners failed the affinity test, as affinity test is not a statutory requirement and cannot override documentary evidence. (Paras 5-6)
B) Scheduled Tribes - Validity Certificate - Revenue Entries - Absence of entry in revenue record under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 regarding tribal status of forefathers is not conclusive to deny scheduled tribe status, especially when other contemporaneous documents exist. (Para 5)
C) Scheduled Tribes - Validity Certificate - Reconsideration - The Committee must reconsider the claim afresh without being influenced by the affinity test and the absence of revenue entries, and pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee's order refusing to issue validity certificates for 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe to the petitioners was sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The committee is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners afresh, without being influenced by the affinity test and the absence of revenue entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Affinity test cannot be sole basis for rejection of caste claim
- Revenue entries under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code not mandatory for tribal status
- Scrutiny committee must consider all evidence holistically
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 15
Writ Petition No. 11326 of 2022
Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh (for petitioners), Mr. M.D. Narwadkar (for respondent No. 1), Mrs. M.A. Deshpande (for respondent No. 2)
Anuja d/o Shivling Damayyawar and Aditya s/o Shivling Damayyawar
State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra, Mumbai and Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat Dist. Nanded
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee refusing to issue validity certificates for 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order and direction to the committee to issue validity certificates.
Filing Reason
The committee rejected the petitioners' claim for scheduled tribe validity certificates on grounds including failure of affinity test, unreliable revenue record, and absence of revenue entries.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, in Writ Petition No. 2685/2022, the court had remanded the matter for reconsideration, but the committee again rejected the claim.
Issues
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting the claim for scheduled tribe validity certificate was sustainable.
Whether the affinity test can be the sole basis for rejection of a caste claim.
Whether absence of revenue entries under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is conclusive to deny tribal status.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the committee's order was unsustainable as it relied on affinity test which is not a statutory requirement, and ignored documentary evidence.
Respondents supported the committee's order, contending that the petitioners failed to prove their tribal status.
Ratio Decidendi
The affinity test is not a statutory requirement and cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a claim for scheduled tribe validity certificate. Absence of revenue entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is not conclusive to deny tribal status. The committee must consider all evidence holistically.
Judgment Excerpts
The committee has refused to grant validity certificates for following reasons : (a) The Shikhmi register ... is not reliable. (b) The favourable entries ... were of recent origin ... (c) ... school record of seven individuals ... mentioning their tribe as 'Munurwad' ... (d) The petitioners also could not get through the affinity test. (e) ... there being no entry in the revenue record ...
The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that it is a third round of the matter reaching this Court.
The committee has heavily relied upon the affinity test. However, the affinity test is not a statutory requirement and cannot be the sole basis for rejection.
Procedural History
The petitioners initially approached the Scrutiny Committee which refused validity certificates. They filed Writ Petition No. 2685/2022, which was disposed of on 14.03.2022 with a direction to reconsider. The committee again rejected the claim, leading to the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000:
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 36, 36A
