Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Aniket s/o Dilip Lokhande, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 29 October 2020 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which invalidated his claim of belonging to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had obtained a caste certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir on 12 December 2018, certifying him as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The claim was forwarded to the respondent committee for verification and issuance of validity. The petitioner submitted all necessary documents, including pre-constitutional documents from 1914 to 1950 showing 'Thakur' caste entry, and a validity certificate of a blood relative. After a vigilance enquiry, the committee issued a show cause notice and the petitioner filed a reply. Despite the documents, the committee invalidated the claim mainly on grounds of area restrictions, failure in affinity test, and abnormal rise in population after removal of area restriction. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that the committee failed to appreciate the probative value of pre-constitutional documents and the validity certificate of a blood relative. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including Abhishek s/o Vijay Ingle v. Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (Writ Petition No.8237/2018), Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919), Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2018 (5) All MR 975), Prakash s/o Shrawan Deore v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and others (2019 (5) Mh.L.J. 228), and Ku. Pallavi d/o Shri Prakashrao Pawar v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Writ Petition No.6022/2017 with Writ Petition No.6475/2017). The Court, after hearing both sides, found that the committee had not properly considered the pre-constitutional documents and the validity certificate of a blood relative. The Court held that pre-constitutional documents have greater probative value and that affinity test and area restrictions cannot override such documentary evidence. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Validity - Pre-constitutional Documents - The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioner's claim of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe primarily on grounds of area restrictions, failure in affinity test, and abnormal rise in population after removal of area restriction. The petitioner had produced pre-constitutional documents from 1914 to 1950 showing 'Thakur' caste entry and a validity certificate of a blood relative. The Court held that pre-constitutional documents have greater probative value and the committee failed to consider them properly. (Paras 2-4) B) Scheduled Tribes - Affinity Test - Not Conclusive - The committee relied on failure in affinity test to reject the claim. The Court held that affinity test is not conclusive and cannot override documentary evidence, especially pre-constitutional documents. (Paras 3-4) C) Scheduled Tribes - Area Restrictions - Not Sole Ground - The committee rejected the claim based on area restrictions and abnormal rise in population. The Court held that area restrictions cannot be the sole ground for rejection when there is sufficient documentary evidence including pre-constitutional documents and validity certificates of blood relatives. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was justified in invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe based on area restrictions, failure in affinity test, and abnormal rise in population, despite the petitioner producing pre-constitutional documents and a validity certificate of a blood relative.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 29 October 2020 passed by the respondent committee, and directed the committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.
Law Points
- Pre-constitutional documents have greater probative value than affinity test
- Area restrictions cannot be sole ground for rejection
- Validity certificate of blood relative is relevant evidence
- Affinity test not conclusive
