Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kokila Raghunath Dhodia, challenged the order dated 19th November 2008 of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, which validated the caste certificate of respondent No.4, Renuka Pandurang Dive @ Renuka Narayan Kakare, as belonging to Varli Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.4 had been issued a caste certificate on 24th August 1996 and contested elections based on it. The Committee had earlier validated the certificate, but that order was set aside by a learned Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2127 of 2007 on 11th September 2008, with a direction to the Committee to take a fresh decision after following the procedure under the Act and the Caste Certificate Rules, 2003, including obtaining a report from the Police Vigilance Cell. On remand, the Vigilance Cell conducted home, school, and other enquiries, visiting the original and present places of residence of respondent No.4 and obtaining documentary evidence. The Research Officer opined that the traits, characteristics, customs, surnames, traditional dress habits, traditional dances, deities, etc., matched with the Varli Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was given a personal hearing. The Committee thereafter passed the impugned order validating the certificate. The petitioner contended that the Committee failed to consider that the respondent No.4's father was a 'Dive' and not a 'Varli', and that the Vigilance Cell report was not properly considered. The High Court held that the Committee had followed the procedure as directed, considered the Vigilance Cell report and anthropological traits, and gave a personal hearing. The court found no perversity in the Committee's decision and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Validation - Procedure under Caste Certificate Rules, 2003 - Caste Scrutiny Committee must follow prescribed procedure including Police Vigilance Cell enquiry, anthropological traits assessment, and personal hearing before validating caste certificate - Held that the Committee's fresh decision after remand, based on Vigilance Cell report and anthropological traits, was valid and not perverse (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order validating the caste certificate of respondent No.4 as belonging to Varli Scheduled Tribe is sustainable in law
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Caste Scrutiny Committee must follow procedure under Caste Certificate Rules
- 2003
- including Police Vigilance Cell enquiry
- anthropological traits assessment
- and personal hearing before validating caste certificate
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 128
Writ Petition No.175 of 2009
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.H. Bhatia
Mr. Nitin Jamdar with Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for petitioner, Mr. Sekhar Ingawale AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Jay K. Bhatia for respondent No.4
State of Maharashtra, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Tahsildar Vasai, Mrs. Renuka Pandurang Dive @ Renuka Narayan Kakare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Caste Scrutiny Committee validating caste certificate of respondent No.4 as belonging to Varli Scheduled Tribe
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Committee's order dated 19th November 2008
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the Committee failed to properly consider the Vigilance Cell report and that respondent No.4's father was not a Varli
Previous Decisions
Earlier validation order was set aside by Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2127 of 2007 on 11th September 2008 and remanded for fresh decision after following procedure under Act and Rules
Issues
Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order validating the caste certificate of respondent No.4 as belonging to Varli Scheduled Tribe is sustainable in law
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Committee failed to consider that respondent No.4's father was a 'Dive' and not a 'Varli', and that the Vigilance Cell report was not properly considered.
Respondents supported the Committee's order, stating that the procedure was followed and the decision was based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Caste Scrutiny Committee, after remand, followed the procedure under the Caste Certificate Rules, 2003, including obtaining a Police Vigilance Cell report, considering anthropological traits, and giving a personal hearing. The decision was based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The Committee had earlier validated the caste certificate . The same was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing Writ Petition No.2127 of 2007.
The learned Bench noted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have obtained report of the Police Vigilance Cell and examined the claim of the respondent No.3 in accordance with the Caste Certificate Rules, 2003.
The Research Officer was that the traits, characteristics and customs, surnames of relatives traditional dress habits, traditional dances, deities, etc., does match with the Varli, Scheduled Tribe.
Procedural History
Respondent No.4 obtained caste certificate on 24th August 1996. Committee validated it. Petitioner challenged in Writ Petition No.2127 of 2007. High Court set aside order on 11th September 2008 and remanded. Committee passed fresh order on 19th November 2008 validating certificate. Petitioner filed present Writ Petition No.175 of 2009 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Caste Certificate Rules, 2003:
