Ku. Mrugnayana Ratiram Chaudhari & Anr. vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur, whereby the caste claim of the petitioners belonging to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who submitted that the petitioners belong to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and that there are various pre-Constitutional documents relied upon by the petitioners, which were also produced before the Committee. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the caste claims of the petitioners were forwarded to the Committee on 20.05.2013 and 21.12.2015, respectively, for validation.

The petitioners have relied upon a document of the year 1921-22 pertaining to their great-great-grandfather, wherein their great-great-grandfather, namely, Aadku Paika Mana, was recorded as belonging to the ‘Mana’ caste. Learned counsel further submitted that Karan Nanaji Chaudhari, Kiran Nanaji Chaudhari and Naresh Abaji Chaudhari, who are the brother, sister and cousin uncle of petitioner No.1, respectively, have been granted caste validity in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5270 of 2004.

He further submitted that the Gadchiroli Committee had earlier invalidated the caste claims of the blood relatives of the present petitioners; however, subsequently, the said order was withdrawn by the Committee and caste validity certificates were granted to them. Thus, he submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the order passed by the Gadchiroli Committee granting caste validity to the blood relatives of the petitioners, the petitioners are also entitled to caste validity. He, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the family tree, which is at page No.66, which shows that Aadku is the great-great-grandfather of the present petitioners and had a son, namely, Sukru. Said Sukru had five sons, namely, Patru, Dashrath, Sakharam, Tukaram and Abaji. Mrutyunjay and Mrugnayana are the present petitioners and are the sons of Ratiram, whose father, Dashrath, was the son of Sukru. Thus, he submitted that the entire genealogy shows the relationship of the present petitioners with Aadku, who was recorded as belonging to the ‘Mana’ caste in the per-Constitutional document of the year 1921-22.

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have discharged the burden of establishing that they belong to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, as the pre-Constitutional document of the year 1921-1922 pertaining to Aadku Paika Mana records the caste of their great-great-grandfather as ‘Mana’. The said document, which is at record page No.68, has been issued by the TILR, Shindewahi, District Chandrapur. Thus, he submitted that the revenue entry establishes that the petitioners’ forefather belonged to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, caste validity certificates have already been issued to the blood relatives of the petitioners by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli. He further invited our attention to the reply filed by the State, wherein the Committee has specifically stated that the petitioners are entitled to caste validity certificate for the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, in parity with the three other applicants, namely, Ku. Kanchan Nanaji Chaudhari, Nanaji Patruji Chaudhari and Ratiram Dashrath Chaudhari. He submitted that, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the issue involved in the present writ petition is already covered and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned AGP specifically stated that initially the Gadchiroli Committee had rejected the caste claims of the blood relatives of the present petitioners, namely, Kanchan Nanaji Chaudhari, Nanaji Kachruji Chaudhari and Ratiram Dashrat Chaudhari. Subsequently, the Committee withdrew the said decision and granted caste validity certificates in their favour. The claim of the present petitioners is now pending before the Chandrapur Committee. The Chandrapur Committee has specifically stated in its reply that, in view of the fact that caste validity certificates have already been granted to the blood relatives of the petitioners, namely, their cousin brothers and sisters and their father, appropriate orders shall be passed.

We have heard both sides and perused the entire record. There is no dispute that the petitioners have relied upon pre-Constitutional documents. The issue regarding the evidentiary value of pre-Constitutional documents is well settled by a catena of decisions, wherein such documents have been held to have a higher degree of probative value in determining the status of a caste as compared to post-Independence documents. Therefore, the document pertaining to the great-great-grandfather of the petitioners, which records his caste as ‘Mana’, deserves due consideration.

It is also not in dispute that, on the basis of similar documentary evidence, the father as well as the cousin brothers and sisters of the petitioners have already been granted caste validity certificates by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli. The reply filed by the Committee further discloses that the caste claims of the father and the cousin brothers and sisters of the petitioners were initially rejected; however, the said orders were subsequently withdrawn by the Committee and caste validity certificates were granted in their favour.

The case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Apoorva Nichale (supra), wherein it has been held that, where the caste claim of an applicant has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of his blood relative ought to be allowed. The caste claim of a blood relative, such as the father, son, daughter, brother or sister, having been scrutinized and accepted, the same cannot be ignored without any cogent reason or without insisting upon further proof.

In the present case, the Committee has failed to properly appreciate the aforesaid legal position. In view of the decision of this Court in Apurva Vinay Nichale (supra), the petitioners are entitled to the same treatment, particularly when the caste validity certificates of their father and cousin brothers and sisters have already been granted. Moreover, the Committee itself has stated in its reply that, in view of the validity certificates granted to the petitioners’ blood relatives, appropriate orders would be passed in respect of the petitioners’ claims.

In view of the above, the petitioners’ caste claims deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order:

The writ petition is allowed.

It is declared that the petitioners belong to the ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur, shall issue the caste validity certificates to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.