Mr. Himanshu Ghodmare vs Vice President & Member Secretary, The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.

(PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 02/11/2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 – The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as “the Caste Scrutiny Committee”) thereby invaliding the tribe claim of the Petitioner.

The contention of the Petitioner is that he has placed on record as many as 17 documents before the Respondent No. 1 – Caste Scrutiny Committee showing the ‘Mana’ entry, out of which, the oldest document is of the year 1944. This document of 1944 is in respect of Punjaram Daulat Mana (great-grandfather of the Petitioner), which is discarded only on the ground that the Petitioner has not filed any other document in respect of Punjaram Daulat Mana. Though in the family tree of the Petitioner, the name of his grandfather is shown as Damodar (Dattu), however, the Caste Scrutiny Committee recorded a finding that there is no independent evidence placed on record showing that these two names are of only one person.

It needs to be noted here that the Petitioner has duly filed affidavit (Page No. 65) wherein he has clearly stated that Dattu and Damodar is one and the same person. The said affidavit is not at all considered by the Committee and it has recorded reasons adverse to the Petitioner. The second document relied on by the Petitioner is of the year 1956, in which, according to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, there is a discrepancy in the date of birth of Ashok, wherein the date of report is shown as 23/01/1956 and the date of birth is shown as 05/02/1956.

In respect of the above observations, we have perused the certified copy of the document itself which is at Page No. 82 wherein the date of birth is shown as 04/02/1956 and the report is shown as 23/01/1956. However, there is endorsement below the date of report that it is not clear. Therefore, there is possibility of mistake in recording the date of report/birth. However, there is an entry of 'Mana' in the said document and in view of the remark of the Issuing Authority on the certified copy, we do not see any reason to discard these documents. It appears that the Petitioner mentioned the reporting date as the date of document.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-

In the judgment in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (supra), it is held that ‘Mana’ is entitled to be treated as Scheduled Tribe throughout the State of Maharashtra and the decision of the Government holding only ‘Gond Manas’ as Scheduled Tribe under Entry No. 18 was struck down. Insofar the judgment in Gajanan Shende (supra) is concerned, the same is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for being declared as bad in law as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12/2022 (Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad & others vs. Deputy Director & Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati). The Full Bench held that the judgment in Gajanan Shende (supra) does not lay down the correct law and militate against what has been held in B. Basavalingappa vs. D. Munichinnappa and other judgments.

Even on perusal of the documents submitted by the Petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it appears that there are consistent entries of ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe in the said documents. As such, the reasons recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee do not sustain the scrutiny of law, and hence, the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, being perverse and erroneous, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-