Bhimashankar Mhalappa Bolkavathekar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Per M.M.SATHAYE, J.)

By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, in respect of Caste Validity of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST) - Mahadeo Koli.

By the impugned order, the Petitioner’s tribe claim is invalidated. His Caste/Tribe certificate dated 20.03.1995 shown to be issued by Tahsildar, North Solapur and fresh Caste/Tribe certificate dated 29.01.2014 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate No.2, Solapur, have been cancelled and confiscated. Hence, this Writ Petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Caste Validity Certificate issued to Petitioner’s real sister (Jayshree Ashok Nimbargi) is perversely considered by the Scrutiny Committee. He submitted that there cannot be inconsistency amongst the caste of blood relatives. He submitted that the validity certificate of his sister Jayshree has not been considered properly. He submitted that the impugned order is passed after the earlier Writ Petition No. 10934 of 2013 was allowed on 26.11.2013, whereby certain directions were given. He submitted that in the school record of his grandfather Mr. Namgonda Bhimanna Koli, a document of December 1928 is relied upon which is not considered properly. He relied upon the Judgment of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v/s. State of Maharashtra and others [2023 SCC Online SC 326], Veena Ashok Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 19968 of 2017 decided on 29.11.2017] and Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 3746], in support of his case.

Learned AGP, on the other hand, relied upon Affidavit-in-Reply dated 18.02.2020 and opposed the petition. She submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order is justified in as much as the caste of the Petitioner’s father is apparently ‘Hindu Koli’ and not ‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’. She submitted that the documents of Petitioner’s father and grandfather are completely inconsistent with each other. She submitted that no cultural affinity is proved by the Petitioner. She submitted that so far as the validity certificate of petitioner’s sister is concerned, the Committee, being quasi judicial authority, has considered the said aspect relying on decision of this Hon’ble Court.

We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the committee has considered that the caste of Petitioner’s father is shown as ‘Hindu Koli’ and not ‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’. Admittedly Hindu Koli is not ST. The document of Petitioner’s grandfather’s school record of December 1928 is also considered by the committee and it is held that as per inquiry officer, it is found that Petitioner’s grandfather was an illiterate person. Therefore his school record is not free from doubt. Indeed, the document of Petitioner’s grandfather (Namgonda), seems doubtful because Petitioners’ father (Mhalappa Namgonda) himself did not claim to be belonging to Hindu Mahadev Koli, but his document indicates caste as Hindu Koli, which is different from Hindu Mahadev Koli. The committee has recorded that the Petitioner has not given satisfactory explanation about this serious contradiction between documents of his father and his grandfather. No explanation is given in this Court also about this serious contradiction. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the conclusion of committee does not suffer from any apparent illegality and it is the most probable finding.

So far as the validity certificate of Petitioner’s sister Jayshree is concerned, the same has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Pradeep Ramchandra Patil (Writ Petition No. 1256/2003 order dated 23.07.2010), which, in turn relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raju Ramsingh Vasave v/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC 54. It has been held by this Court in Pradeep R. Patil (supra) that ‘decision rendered on a wrong premise wherein no factual foundation was placed, would not operate as res-judicata and though the opinion formed by the committee as regards cases of near relatives would not be held irrelevant, but at the same time, it must be pointed out that only by mistake or otherwise, a member of family was declared as member of Scheduled Tribe, the same itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another committee while examining the case of any other member of the family in some detail’.

The Committee found on facts that initially the Petitioner had relied upon a caste certificate of the year 1995 which was found to be fabricated during inquiry. Thereafter, the Petitioner procured another caste certificate in 2014 and its xerox copy was produced before the Committee. Due to such facts, the Committee has held that the Petitioner tried to continue with the concessions/benefit claiming to be belonging to a particular Caste/Tribe. The committee has then relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v/s. Milind and others (Civil Appeal No. 2294/1986) and it is recorded that the Petitioner’s conduct is fraudulent.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the Petitioner is found to have acted fraudulently, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in his favour. This is not a fit case to interfere with a probable view taken and finding recorded by the scrutiny committee. In the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated above, the Judgments relied upon by the Petitioner will not advance the case of the Petitioner.

In that view of the matter, we decline to interfere. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.