WRIT PETITION NO. 8174/2018

3rd March 2020

Petitioner Counsel: Shri A. I. Sheikh
Respondent Counsel: Shri M. A. Kadu

Cases Cited :
Para 5: Premraj Ganesh Battul Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No. 757/2010
Para 6: Nitin S/o Ramesh Uprellu Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, Writ Petition No. 1311/2012
Para 6: Manish S/o. Bansidhar Panchgam Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5119/2016
Para 7: Shri Anil Ramdas Mede Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 5090/2003
Para 8: Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919

JUDGEMENT

VINAY JOSHI, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner’s caste claim for ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe has been rejected by respondent No. 2, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur vide impugned order dated 29.08.2018 which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe which is an entry at Serial No. 18 in Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The Deputy Collector, Nagpur has issued caste certificate to the petitioner on 13.05.2009. The petitioner’s caste claim was sent for verification and issuance of validity certificate to respondent No. 2 Committee. Usual Vigilance Cell inquiry was made. By expressing dissatisfaction, respondent No. 2 Committee has rejected caste claim of the petitioner vide order dated 09.03.2018. The respondent has initially challenged said order in Writ Petition No. 2051/2008, in which the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The petitioner has tendered in all fifteen documents to substantiate his caste claim. The respondent No. 2 Committee ones again rejected caste claim vide impugned order dated 29.08.2018.

4. The petitioner has produced two pre-constitutional documents to support his claim. He has produced birth extract dated 15.07.1939 of his great-grandfather Girmil Mutaiyaa in which the entry of one Ambadas male child begotten to him was recorded. He has produced another birth extract relating to Girmil Mutaiyaa dated 17.05.1943. The Vigilance Cell also verified those documents but does not dispute that there is entry of ‘Manewar’ caste to said old record. The respondent No. 2 Committee has mainly discarded these documents on the ground that the old entries are of ‘Manewar’ which is different from ‘Mannewar’ which is Scheduled Tribe. Rather difference of name mentioned in old document has influenced the respondent No. 2 Committee to decline the claim of petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no caste like ‘Manewar’ and therefore respondent No. 2 Committee went wrong in sidelining these old documents having probative value. He would submit that the said issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 757/2010 (Premraj Ganesh Battul Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and other connected matters decided on 10.08.2010. The very issue was considered by this Court and held that though there is entry as ‘Manewar’, it cannot be held that it has no relation with the Scheduled Tribe entry of ‘Mannewar’. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce the observation of para 4 of the said decision which are as follows:-
“4. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.2/caste scrutiny committee, submitted that the Committee found that the documents show the Tribe as belonging to “Manewar” which is different from “Mannewar” which is Scheduled Tribe. We see no merit in this argument since even after opportunities were given the caste scrutiny committee has not been in a position to demonstrate the existence of any caste or tribe called “Manewar”. There seem to be two old documents of 1925 and 1932 which show that the petitioners belong to “Manewar”. We are of the view that the Caste Scrutiny Committee went completely wrong in rejecting these documents on the ground that they show the petitioners belong to nonexisting caste “Manewar” and the documents should have been read as belonging to “Mannewar” which is admittedly Scheduled Tribe.”

6. Similarly, petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 1311/2012 (Nitin S/o Ramesh Uprellu Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 30.11.2012 and in Writ Petition No.5119/2016 (Manish S/o. Bansidhar Panchgam Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 10.04.2017. Precisely, in series of decisions of this Court it is observed that the entry of ‘Manewar’ being not a separate Tribe, it can be construed as ‘Mannewar’.

7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there are some entries as ‘Telgu’ or ‘Telgu Mannewar’ and therefore, they would work adversely against the case of petitioner. Said issue is also covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5090/2003 (Shri Anil Ramdas Mede Vs. State of Maharashtra & others) decided on 26.08.2004. In the said case, this Court has held that ‘Telgu’ is not a separate caste but in common parlance ‘Telgu’ refers to area or region of the State of Andhra Pradesh therefore, these entries cannot be construed against the case of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner’s case is also rejected on account of failure in affinity test. The said issue is well covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Anand vrs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that the affinity test can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence but cannot be considered as litmus test.

9. In substance, we find that there are two pre-constitutional documents having high probative value. The genuineness of these documents is not denied by Vigilance Cell. Besides, no other adverse documents are collected.

10. In the result, we hold that the petitioner has established his claim for ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. The petition is allowed and we pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The claim of the petitioner for ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe which is an entry at Sr. No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is held to be valid. The Committee is accordingly directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate in the name of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.