Ku Chanchal Waman Shrirame & Anr. vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors.

(Per Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, whereby their claim of belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe was invalidated. The petitioners are sisters and pursuing their education. As per the contention of the petitioners, they belong to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The tribe claim of petitioner No.1, Ms Chanchal, seeking validation of her status as belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. The proposal was received by the respondent No.1- Scrutiny Committee on 05.01.2022. The tribe claim of petitioner No.2 Ms. Sneha Waman Shrirame, seeking validation of her status as belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, was forwarded to the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee on 31.05.2022. As per the contention of the petitioners, their father Waman Pandurang was granted with validity in terms of judgment in CA No. 5270 of 2004 by the Supreme Court. They also placed reliance on the pre-constitutional documents as their great grandfather Ragho was recorded as ‘Mana’ during the pre-independence era. Thereafter all other forefathers especially their great grandfather Tukaram and grandfather Pandurang were also recorded as ‘Mana’. On the basis of stray entry in the Agricultural Land Extract against the name of their great great grandfather Ragho as a Mana Kunabi, their caste claim was invalidated by ignoring the other relevant documents.

As per the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.1-the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur referred their caste claim for the Vigilance Report. The Vigilance Officer has verified the documents on which they are relied upon. Despite the consistent documents showing that the forefathers of the present petitioners as ‘Mana’, the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee ignored the said documents and invalidated the caste claim of the present petitioners and hence, petitioners approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, their family tree was submitted by the present petitioners before the Committee, which is reproduced as under:-

Thus, the ancestor namely Ragho was great great grandfather of the present petitioners who was having three sons namely Paikku, Tukaram and Ganpat. Out of them Ganpat died unmarried. Tukaram who was the great grandfather of the present petitioners having two sons Pandurang and Sripath. Said Pandurang was having two daughters and three sons namely Ganga, Kacharabai, Waman, Dhyaneshwar and Jagdish. Waman is the father of the present petitioners. Waman has granted with a validity in view of the decision by the Supreme Court in CA No. 5270 of 2004 and the said validity is not subsequently challenged by the respondent No. 1- Scrutiny Committee. Thus, it has attained the finality. Despite the existence of above facts, the Committee ignored the same and invalidated the tribe claim of the present petitioners only on the ground that there was one adverse entry recording Ragho great great grandfather of the present petitioners as ‘Mana Kunbi’. The Vigilance Officer has verified the documents placed on record which shows that said Ragho great great grand father of the present petitioners was recorded as ‘Mana’ in the year 1926-1927, 1930-1931. These entries are verified by the Vigilance Officer and found to be genuine one. During the Vigilance Report, the Vigilance Officer has collected one entry showing Ragho was having another son namely Arjun and the said entry was of 1913-1914 wherein said Ragho was recorded as Kunbi. Thus, he submitted that on the basis of stray entry against the name of the forefathers of the present petitioners, the claim of the present petitioners was invalidated by the Committee. He submitted that the entire law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court was ignored by the Committee and therefore, the caste claim of the present petitioners deserves to be validated. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and another vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 359, Writ Petition No. 3649 of 2021 decided on 03.09.2025, Anand versus Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors. reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919 and Writ Petition No.1208 of 2020 decided on 24.08.2022.

Per contra, learned AGP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the caste entries appearing in the records of the petitioners forefathers namely Kunbi, Kunbi Mana, Mana Kunbi, Mani and Khati do not find place in the list of Scheduled Tribes notified under the relevant Presidential Order applicable to State of Maharashtra. Only Mana is specifically included in the list at Serial No. 18 as a Scheduled Tribe. The caste ‘Kunbi’ is recognised and classified under the Order Backward Caste (OBC) category at Serial No. 83 of the relevant State list. Consequently the caste entries reflected in the ancestral records of the petitioners cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be equated with or treated as synonymous to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. Thus, petitioners failed to establish their claim belonging to Mana Schedule Tribe. The documents referred by the petitioners are in the form of private Malgujari receipts purportedly pertaining to Ragho alias Raghu Mana for the years 1925, 1926-27, 1928-29 and 1930 were duly referred to the Vigilance Cell for verification. Upon conducting the requisite enquiry, the Naib Tahsildar Kuhi, vide communication dated 28.04.2022 categorically informed that the said documents neither pertain to or nor originate from the records maintained by the Tahsil Office, Kuhi. Thus, the above said documents are private in nature and therefore, cannot be relied upon. She further submitted that the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee has rightly disregarded the said documents while adjudicating the petitioners tribe claim as the same do not constitute reliable, authentic or legally admissible evidence. She submitted that in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 and State of Maharashtra vs. Mana Adim Jamath Mandal reported in 2006 4 SCC 98 has consistently held that the list of Scheduled Tribes notified under the Presidential Order is conclusive and must be construed strictly as it stands, without any addition, deletion, substitution or modification by any Authority, Court or Tribunal. The caste entries appearing in the records of the petitioners' forefathers namely ‘Kunbi’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Mana Kunbi’ and ‘Mani’ are clear, distinct, and self-explanatory entries which does not find place in the list of Scheduled Tribes notified under the applicable Presidential Order. In view of the settled legal position and the documentary evidence available on record, the Committee has rightly invalidated the caste claim of the present petitioners and therefore the petition being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

She placed reliance on State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, Civil Appeal No. 5270 of 2024 and Maruti Venkati Gaikwad Vs. Deputy Director and Member Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Amravati the Full Bench Judgment reported in Air Online 2023 Bom. 1849.

Undisputedly, the father of the petitioners, Waman was granted Tribe Validity Certificate in view of the order of Supreme Court in Civil Application No.5270 of 2004 on 06.11.2008. As far as the family tree is concerned, there is no dispute that original ancestor Raghu Mana was having son Ragho and said Ragho was having 3 sons, namely Paiku, Tukaram and Ganpat. Tukaram is the great grandfather of the present petitioners. The present petitioners in support of their caste claim placed reliance on the pre-independence documents namely Assessment Extract of the year 1926-27 showing Ragho walda Raghu Mana as Mana. He was subsequently in the assessment extract recorded as Mana in the year 1930 and 1931. These entries also find place in the documents collected by the Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Report shows that these Assessment Extracts are verified by the Vigilance Officer recorded in the name of Ragho Wald Raghu Mana of year 1926-27 and 1930-31. On verification they found the said entry as genuine one. The Vigilance Report further shows that during vigilance enquiry they found said Raghu was having another one son namely Arjun but he was not shown in the family tree and while taking the birth entry of said Arjun said Raghu was recorded as Mana kunbi. Basing reliance on the said entry the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the present petitioners. The petitioners placed reliance on various receipts which according to the learned AGP are not issued from the Tahsil Office. The said Mal Gujari receipts pertaining to Ragho Raghu Mana and the Nayab Tahsildar vide communication dated 28.04.2022 informed that said documents neither pertain the records maintained in the Tahsil Office. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the said receipts. Beside the said receipts, petitioners placed reliance on the extract of the assessment registers. The said extract of the assessment registers of the year 1926-27, 1930-31 records the great great grandfather of the present petitioners namely Ragho Raghu as ‘Mana’. As already observed that these two entries are verified by the Vigilance Officer and found to be genuine one. Pandurang who is the grandfather of the present petitioners and the birth entry of son of the Pandurang recorded in the year 1969 shows that he was recorded as ‘Mana’. Then birth entry of son of Kesoram who is the cousin great grandfather of the present petitioners and birth entry of his son recorded on 17.08.1970 also shows that he was recorded as ‘Mana’. Similarly, the entry of Son of another son of Pandurang in the year 1971 records Pandurang as Mana. Thus, there appears to be consistent entries showing the forefathers of the present petitioners as Mana. The House Assessment Registered Extract of the year 1962, 1963 also shows that Tukaram Ragho who was the great grandfather of the present petitioners was also recorded as Mana. The marriage register showing marriage of son of cousin great grandfather of the present petitioners, Bhagwan performed in the year 1972 wherein also they were recorded as ‘Mana’. The Committee relied upon one stray entry of 1912-1913, which is the Assessment Register of the Agricultural Land of great great grandfather of the present petitioners of bearing Survey No. 66 of Village Kuhi, wherein said Ragho Raghu was recorded as Kunbi Mana. The Respondent-Committee also relied upon one entry son of Raghu as Arjun of the year 1912-1913 showing said Raghu as a ‘Mana Kunbi’. Thus, on the basis of above two entries the Committee invalidated the caste claim of the present petitioners.

It is well settled that entries of pre-independence era have a higher probative value. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules 2003 provides that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting enquiry. While interpreting the said Rule the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samhita vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 (2) MhLJ. 785 held that “in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry. When sub rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the material produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the application of mind must be reflected in the order sheets of the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee heavily relied upon the entry of the assessment register showing great great grandfather of the petitioners recorded as ‘Kunbi’ in the Agricultural Land Assessment Register. The term ‘Kunbi’ is derived from terms associated with farming and seed germination. When ‘Kunbi’ is used as a prefix or suffix alongside another caste name, it primarily indicates occupational shift. The word ‘Kunbi’ derives from roots meaning cultivator. We are aware about the observation of the Full Bench in the case of Maruti Venkati Gaikwad (supra) wherein the Full Bench has observed that when the Scheduled Tribe Mana was included in Entry 18 and was granted the benefit of Scheduled Tribe status, it was only the Tribe Mana alone which would claim such status and none else whatever be its prefix or suffix with the word ‘Mana’, or inter se relations with ‘Mana’. No tribe/community, sub-tribe or part thereof by whatever names like ‘Badwaik Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’, ‘Gond Mana’, ‘Mani’ ‘Mane’ etc. could be said to have been included in the tribe ‘Mana’, which was accorded in Scheduled Tribe status by its inclusion in Entry No.18.

The Full Bench further observed that while including the tribe ‘Mana’, in entry 12 and later on in entry 18, the President cannot be said to be oblivious of the existence of the sub-tribes or groups which had prefixes or suffixes synonymous with ‘Mana’ and thus the exclusion will have to be held as intentional and deliberate. Any inclusion of these so-called tribes/communities, sub-tribes or parts thereof, in the Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’, on account of their claim of being included in the Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’, would now only be permissible by a law to be enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers under Article 342(2) of the Constitution, after following the due procedure as is contemplated in Article 338A of the Constitution and not otherwise. The Full Bench has held that the entries in the Presidential order are sacrosanct and must be read as they stand, without addition, subtraction or expansion. It has further said that the Scheduled Tribe, ‘Mana’ appearing in Entry No. 18 is confined only to the Tribe, ‘Mana’ and does not include communities or sub-groups bearing prefixes, suffixes or synonymous expressions such as Badwaik Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’, ‘Gond Mana’ and ‘Mani’ ‘Mane’ etc and the like.

In the light of the above Full Bench judgment, if the facts of the present case are considered, it consistently shows that the forefathers of the petitioners, especially the great grandfather of the petitioners, was recorded as ‘Mana’ in the revenue records in the year 1926-27, 1930-31. The father of the petitioners granted with a validity in view of the decision of Supreme Court in CA No.5270 of 2004. The Committee relied upon one birth entry showing that said Raghu was having son by name Arjun whose birth entry was recorded in the birth register in the year 1912-1913. However, the petitioners while replying the show cause notice has denied any connection with the said entry. The order of the Committee nowhere discloses any connection between the forefathers of the petitioners and the entry in the name of Arjun showing son of one Raghu. While replying the show cause notice, the father of the petitioners has explained all the entries. The family tree, all the statements and the statements recorded during the vigilance enquiry nowhere reveal any connection between the forefathers of the petitioners and the said entry. It is common knowledge that several persons could be found of the similar names in one village. When the Committee came with a specific case that these adverse entries are regarding family members of the petitioners, the Committee has to show the connection.

In the present matter, the Vigilance Officer has verified the documents from which the petitioners relied upon and no doubt is raised as to the genuineness of the said documents. The Vigilance Officer has corrected one entry in the name of Arjun, showing he is the son of Raghu, the ancestor of the petitioners. However, said Arjun is not shown in the family tree. The Committee has not shown any connection and the basis showing that said Arjun is from the family of the petitioners. The Committee must be mindful of the fact that it is not an appellate authority. So, the Committee has to only verify the tribe claim of the petitioners. The Committee has also ignored the fact that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CA No. 5270 of 2004 the validity was granted to the father of the petitioners. In that circumstances, the judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs Division Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee reported in (2001) 6 MH.LJ. 401 was required to be considered by the Committee wherein it has held that where tribe claim of a person has been scrutinized and accepted and one Committee has given a finding about validity of his tribe, another Committee ought not to refuse the same status to his/her blood relatives who apply subsequently.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, since we find that petition deserves to be allowed by directing the Committee to issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioners to be ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

Hence, we proceed to pass following order.

With the above directions petition is disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.