Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Roshan Uttam Rai and others, filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 4th August 2008 passed by the Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik. The Committee had validated the caste claim of Respondent No.1, Somnath Shivnath Badade, as belonging to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners challenged the order primarily on two grounds: first, that certain pre-constitutional documents from 1920 showing the caste as 'Hindu' were not considered in proper perspective; and second, that the affinity test was not conducted in the manner prescribed by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. The Court, comprising Justices P B Majmudar and R M Savant, heard the petition. The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate V A Thorat, while Respondent No.1 was represented by S K Shinde and the State by AGP V S Gokhale. The Court found merit in the petitioners' contentions. It held that the Scrutiny Committee had failed to properly consider the pre-constitutional documents, which had high probative value, and had not conducted the affinity test as per the guidelines laid down in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and remanded the matter back to the Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court directed the Committee to consider all relevant documents, including the pre-constitutional documents, and to conduct the affinity test properly as per the Shilpa Vishnu Thakur guidelines.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Scrutiny - Validation of Caste Claim - Burden of Proof - The burden of establishing that an applicant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe is on the applicant under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The Scrutiny Committee has powers of a Civil Court under CPC. (Para 40 of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur) B) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Scrutiny - Pre-Constitutional Documents - High Probative Value - Pre-constitutional documents relating back to 1920 showing caste as 'Hindu' must be considered in proper perspective. Non-consideration of such documents vitiates the validation order. (Paras 1-2) C) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Scrutiny - Affinity Test - Proper Conduct - The affinity test must be conducted in the manner enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. Failure to conduct the affinity test as per guidelines renders the order unsustainable. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee validly validated the caste claim of Respondent No.1 as belonging to Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe despite non-consideration of pre-constitutional documents and improper conduct of affinity test.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 4th August 2008 and remanded the matter back to the Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing proper consideration of pre-constitutional documents and conduct of affinity test as per Shilpa Vishnu Thakur guidelines.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on applicant to establish Scheduled Tribe status
- Pre-constitutional documents have high probative value
- Affinity test must be conducted as per Shilpa Vishnu Thakur guidelines
- Scrutiny Committee must consider all relevant documents
