AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, whereby the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No. 18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, came to be invalidated.
The petitioner, a student pursuing B.C.A., submitted her claim for validation of her caste certificate as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe through her college before the respondent-Scrutiny Committee on 27.06.2023. In support of her claim, she produced various documentary records, including pre-Constitution birth extracts dated 24.08.1919, 23.03.1940 and 01.04.1940 pertaining to her forefathers, school records of her paternal relatives, and other supporting documents such as the death certificate and voter identity card of her grandfather. By order dated 29.12.2023, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee invalidated her tribe claim and directed cancellation and confiscation of her tribe certificate. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Ananta Ramteke, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has committed a grave error in discarding the pre-Constitution birth extract dated 24.08.1919 of great grandfather merely because the original register was found to be in a dilapidated condition during the vigilance enquiry. It is submitted that neither the Vigilance Cell nor the Committee has recorded any finding that the said document is forged or fabricated. Moreover, the relationship of the petitioner with the ancestor recorded therein has not been disputed. It is further submitted that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate the corroborative documents, including the death certificate and voter identity card of the petitioner's grandfather, which establish the genealogy.
It is further submitted that the other pre-Constitution birth extracts dated 23.03.1940 and 01.04.1940 were found to be genuine during the vigilance enquiry. However, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee discarded the said documents by placing undue reliance on certain subsequent entries recording the caste as "Mani Kunbi", "Mani (Ku.)", "Mane Kunbi" and similar descriptions. According to the petitioner, the adverse entries were satisfactorily explained in the reply submitted to the show cause notice dated 07.10.2023, but the same was not duly considered. It is contended that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee overlooked the settled principle that pre-Constitution documents carry greater evidentiary value than subsequent records.
Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has erroneously invalidated the petitioner's tribe claim on the basis of the affinity test, despite the settled legal position that the affinity test is only a corroborative factor and cannot outweigh reliable documentary evidence. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v State of Maharashtra and others, 2023 (2) Mh.L.J 785, wherein it has been observed that the affinity test is not a litmus test and not an essential part of verifying a caste claim in every case. It is also contended that the Committee has misapplied the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court while appreciating the evidence on record. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 be quashed and set aside and the respondent-Scrutiny Committee be directed to issue a validity certificate certifying the petitioner as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
Per contra, Mrs. S.S. Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner's tribe claim was scrutinized strictly in accordance with the provisions 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 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that the claim was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell for conducting home, school and revenue enquiries, and upon receipt of the vigilance report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, afforded an opportunity of hearing, and her explanation was duly considered before passing the impugned order.
It is submitted that the Vigilance Cell unearthed several authentic government records pertaining to the petitioner's paternal relatives for the period between 1938 and 1960, wherein their caste was consistently recorded as "Mani Kunbi", "Mana Kunbi", "Mani Ku.", "Mane Kunbi" and "Ma. Kunbi". According to the respondent, these adverse entries, being pre-Constitution and obtained from official records, possess high probative value and clearly contradict the petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It is further submitted that the birth extract dated 24.08.1919 relied upon by the petitioner could not be authenticated as the original register was found to be in a torn and dilapidated condition during the vigilance enquiry. The respondent further contends that the birth extract dated 01.04.1940 pertaining to Eknath, son of Atmaram Fakira, does not relate to the petitioner's family, as the said persons do not figure in the genealogy prepared during the vigilance enquiry.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent further submits that the Committee has rightly treated the entries of "Mana", "Mana Kunbi", "Mani", "Mane Kunbi" and similar expressions as distinct communities in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions in Kunda Vishwanath Ghodmare v. Committee for Scrutiny, 2001(1)Mh.L.J 557, State of Maharashtra v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, AIR 2006 SC 3446 and the Full Bench decision in Maroti s/o Vyankati Gaikwad v. Deputy Director and Member Secretary, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1991, wherein it has been held that "Mana Kunbi", "Mani", "Mane Kunbi" and similar communities cannot be equated with "Mana" Scheduled Tribe as specified in Entry No.18 of the Presidential Order. It is also submitted that the petitioner failed to establish her socio-cultural affinity with the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe during the vigilance enquiry and personal hearing.
It is, therefore, submitted that the Scrutiny Committee, after considering the documentary evidence, the vigilance report, the petitioner's explanation and the binding judicial precedents, rightly invalidated the petitioner's tribe claim by order dated 29.12.2023. According to the respondent, the impugned order is legal, proper and passed after following the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, and hence warrants no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the relevant documents and citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has placed on record three pre-Constitution documents, namely, the birth extract dated 24.08.1919 pertaining to her great great grandfather Shiva, the birth extract dated 23.03.1940 pertaining to Bajerao Shiva, and the birth extract dated 01.04.1940 pertaining to Atmaram Fakira, wherein the caste is consistently recorded as "Mana". It is well settled that pre-Constitution documents, being contemporaneous in nature and prepared prior to the advent of reservation benefits, carry the highest probative value while adjudicating a claim for Scheduled Tribe status. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has not recorded any finding that the documents dated 23.03.1940 and 01.04.1940 are either fabricated or otherwise unreliable. However, despite the existence of such valuable documentary evidence, the Scrutiny Committee has chosen to discard the petitioner's claim primarily on the basis of certain subsequent contra entries. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of tribe claims.
The record further reveals that upon receipt of the vigilance report, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 07.10.2023, specifically explaining each of the adverse entries relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee. Insofar as the contra entry dated 17.11.1938 in the Kotwal Book, wherein the caste of Shiva is recorded as "Mana Kunbi", is concerned, the petitioner explained that the said entry pertains to the very same ancestor whose caste had already been recorded as "Mana" in the earlier birth extract dated 24.08.1919. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the subsequent entry stood eclipsed by the earlier pre-Constitution entry of the same individual. Since the document of the year 1919 is considerably older than the contra entry of 1938, the former undoubtedly possesses greater evidentiary value. We find considerable substance in the said explanation. The Committee, however, has neither dealt with this explanation nor assigned any cogent reason for preferring the later adverse entry over the oldest available document.
Similarly, the petitioner explained the contra entry dated 01.04.1943, wherein the caste of Shiva Fakira (Great Grandfather of petitioner) is recorded as "Mana Kunbi". According to the petitioner, the said entry stands sufficiently explained by the earlier Kotwal Book extract dated 01.04.1940, wherein Atmaram Fakira (Cousin Great Grandfather of petitioner), belonging to the same paternal lineage, is recorded as belonging to "Mana" caste. Likewise, the adverse entries dated 28.09.1949 and 21.01.1960 pertaining to Bajerao/Bajya Shiva, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mana Ku.", were specifically explained by pointing out that an earlier birth extract dated 23.03.1940 relating to the very same branch of the family records the caste as "Mana". In our view, these explanations were neither fanciful nor inherently improbable. Once the petitioner had produced earlier pre-Constitution documents pertaining to the same lineage recording the caste as "Mana", it was incumbent upon the Committee to objectively consider the explanations before placing reliance upon subsequent adverse entries. The impugned order, however, reflects no meaningful consideration of these explanations.
The petitioner has also specifically explained the adverse entry dated 25.08.1947, wherein the caste of Mahadev is recorded as "Mani". According to the petitioner, the said entry does not pertain to her family at all but relates to one Mahadev Jivtode of village Bori. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has rejected the explanation without recording any finding establishing the petitioner's relationship with said Mahadev. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the said individual forms part of the petitioner's genealogy, the said entry could not have been mechanically treated as an adverse entry against the petitioner. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has thus failed to undertake the necessary exercise of establishing the genealogical linkage before relying upon the said document.
Equally untenable is the reasoning adopted by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee while discarding the oldest document dated 24.08.1919 on the ground that the original register was found to be in a torn or dilapidated condition during the vigilance enquiry and, therefore, its authenticity could not be verified. It is significant to note that neither the Vigilance Cell nor the Committee has recorded any finding that the said document is forged, fabricated or manipulated. Mere deterioration of an old public record owing to passage of time cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground to discard an otherwise relevant pre-Constitution document. Public records maintained for more than a century are naturally susceptible to wear and tear. If such a reason is accepted, most ancient public documents would become incapable of consideration, defeating the very object of according high evidentiary value to pre-Constitution records. In our opinion, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has committed a grave error in rejecting the birth extract dated 24.08.1919 solely on the ground that the original register was in a dilapidated condition.
The respondent-Scrutiny Committee has further invalidated the petitioner's claim on the ground that she failed to establish the socio-cultural affinity of the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Such an approach also cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), has reiterated that where a claimant produces reliable documentary evidence, particularly pre-Constitution documents, the affinity test is merely corroborative in nature and cannot be elevated to the status of a decisive test. The affinity test cannot be employed to dislodge otherwise cogent documentary evidence. In the present case, the petitioner has produced reliable pre-Constitution records consistently recording the caste as "Mana". Therefore, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee was not justified in allowing the affinity test to override such documentary evidence.
Having considered the entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in its proper perspective. The oldest pre-Constitution documents dated 24.08.1919, 23.03.1940 and 01.04.1940, recording the caste as "Mana", deserved due weightage. The explanations furnished by the petitioner regarding each of the adverse entries were plausible and ought to have been objectively examined. Instead, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has mechanically relied upon the subsequent contra entries while ignoring the superior evidentiary value of the earlier records and has further rejected the oldest document on an untenable ground. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of material evidence and misapplication of the settled legal principles governing adjudication of Scheduled Tribe claims, and consequently cannot be sustained.
On the overall consideration of the material on record, we are satisfied that the petitioner has successfully established her claim of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in Case No. सहआ/अजप्रतस /अम/5/503/Edu/062023/209607, invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a validity certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying her as belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the present Writ petition is allowed.
Rule shall be made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.