Narendra Gulabsing Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the State.

Writ Petition No. 5361/2010 is already admitted. By consent of the parties, Writ Petition No. 138/2019 is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

The petitioner namely Narendra Gulabsing Sonawane in Writ Petition No. 138/2019 is a son of petitioner namely Gulabsing Harsing Sonawane (Bhil) in Writ Petition No. 5361/2010. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments in respective writ petitions holding the petitioners’ tribe claim invalidated. Now in Writ Petition No. 5361/2010 legal heirs of petitioner are on record as he died during the pendency of the petition. It is a case that, Gulabsing was a son of one Rajibai who was admittedly belonging to Bhil community. She was staying with one Suratsing Girase who happened to be a person belonging to Rajput, an open caste. However, thereafter within few days she left the company of Suratsing and started residing with her parents at Nimgul village, Taluka Shindkheda. There was no marriage between Suratsing and the lady.

When she was residing with Suratsing, in the school record and in other documents the name of petitioner is shown to be son of Suratsing Sonawane. It was the case of the Gulabsing that though his name was appearing as son of Suratsing, he, in fact, was born from Harsing Hirsing Kuvar/Bhil i.e. first husband of the mother. The mother was staying with Suratsing without performing marriage for some period. Therefore, he raised a claim as belonging to scheduled tribe but suffered invalidation. He therefore approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3391/2009. This Court by recording the facts narrated above and some additional facts was pleased to remand the matter back to the scrutiny committee.

After remand of the matter, the scrutiny committee even directed to conduct DNA test. It was confirmed that the petitioner – Gulabsing is not a son of Harsing Hirsing Kuvar/Bhil and therefore, his tribe claim came to be rejected. However, now the petitioner has approached this Court on many other grounds including that since he was staying with mother’s community and not with father’s community and therefore he enjoyed the status of tribe. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner – Gulabsing died. His heirs are now on record. The petition is contested because the caste status of the deceased petitioner would affect the status of other members of the family.

So far as Writ Petition No. 138/2019 is concerned, caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated mainly because his father’s claim is invalidated.

Learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued the petition. He submits that, when child is not staying with the father and is always in the company of mother, when she resides in her own community in spite of marriage, then in such cases it is the caste status/tribe status of the mother that needs to be considered while considering the question of granting of validity certificate. He relies upon the following judgments.

The learned advocate ultimately submits that at the most the caste scrutiny committee be directed to conduct fresh inquiry so that the petitioners would be in a position to raise all these grounds.

The learned A.G.P. opposes the petition. He submits that the facts are almost admitted. Because father’s claim is invalidated, his son’s claim is also invalidated. He submits that in the earlier round matter was remanded to the committee. The committee had called for DNA test report. The DNA test clearly suggested that the petitioner – Gulabsing was not a biological son of Harsing Hirsing Kuvar/Bhil. He thus submits that only possibility therefore remains is to accept that Gulabsing was son of Suratsing Girase and therefore, the committee has rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the caste status.

Considering all above arguments, one thing is clear that the case of the petitioner - Gulabsing now is that he was staying with her mother at village Nimgul in her tribe. The school record shows that the petitioner – Gulabsing had taken the name of Suratsing as his father. Be that as it is, this Court finds that, at least a case is made out to remand the matter for fresh inquiry.

The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside. The scrutiny committee is requested, on remand, to complete the inquiry as early as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today in view of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners which are referred above.

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.

With this, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

In view of disposal of writ petitions, pending civil application also stands disposed of.