Naveen Dilip Panchabhaiye, Minor through father and natural guardian Dilip Mahadev Pachabhaiye vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Mridula Bhatkar, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2-Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee considered the petitioner as belonging to the ''Koshti'' caste thereby forming a separate caste as Halba-Koshti which is not included at serial No. 19 of the Caste Schedule of State of the Maharashtra.

The petitioner relied on the genealogical tree of Sadoba Panchbhaiye which is as under:--

The petitioner also relied on the documents prior to the Presidential Order of 1950. The relevant documents are as follows:--

(i) The extract of the School Register of Baliram Ramchandra of 1/10/1913 issued on 23/7/2007 by the School disclosed caste as Halbi and profession- weaving;

(ii) Vigilance Cell of Amravati Scrutiny Committee has obtained school leaving certificate of 20.6.1923 to 10.4.1928 of one Narayan Vithoji Pachabhaiye, a cousin grand father of the applicant;

(iii) A School Leaving Certificate of Vithu Gangaramji Pachabhaiye of 1/7/1904; transfer certificate of Mahadev Vithu Pachabhaiye from 1931 to 1938;

(iv) A Farokhnama of Ramchandra Sadoba Pachabhaiye the paternal cousin great grand father executed on 17/7/1937 was produced;

(v) Deed of mortgage by Vithoba the paternal real great grand father dated 24/8/1948 was relied.

All these documents show the paternal relatives of the applicant as belonging to the halba-halbi caste and their profession to be weaving.

In the report of the Vigilance Cell it is mentioned that the petitioner failed to prove the customs and socio-cultural traits of the Halbi Scheduled Tribe.

The petitioner contends that although he was successful in establishing that he is Halba/Halbi, the Committee wrongly rejected the claim on the ground of affinity test and the profession.

Mr. Mendadkar''s submission that it is not permissible to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to interpret or read between the entry of the caste in the Schedule is well founded. The Committee has erred in interpreting Halbi having the sub-caste Koshti and therefore, Halba-Koshti as a separate caste. In support of the observation, the Committee has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Neelkanth Katale v. The Committee for Scrutiny of Tribes Claim in Writ Petition No. 1687 of 2004. However, the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court in Anand Vs. Committee For Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, . While dealing with this issue the Supreme Court has laid down broad parameters including that greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of Status of a caste. The Supreme Court held that with migration, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test has corroborative value and it should not be a main criterion to reject the claim. In paragraph-24 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:--

Having examined the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid broad parameters, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant has not been examined properly. We feel that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim had been lightly brushed aside by the Vigilance Officer as also by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Insofar as the High Court is concerned, it has rejected the claim solely on the basis of the affinity test. It is pertinent to note that some of these documents date back to the pre-Independence era, issued to the appellant''s grandfather and thus, hold great probative value as there can be no reason for suppression of facts to claim a non-existent benefit to the "halbi" Scheduled Tribe at that point of time.

So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned and the findings given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee taken into account, the case falls within the ratio in Anand Vs. Committee For Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, laid down by the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding a group of Writ petitions along with Writ Petition No. 2571 of 2001 (Sou. Priya Pravin Parate v. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee) by its order dated 4.10.2012 determined the caste claim of Halbi of all the applicants by relying on the judgment in Anand v. Committee (supra). The Division Bench stated that the petitioner''s caste claim of Halba should not have been rejected on the ground that his forefathers have been involved in weaving.

In the present case the petitioner has produced many relevant documents prior to 1950 specifically showing his caste as Halba/Halbi and profession as weaving. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and also of the Division Bench of our High Court referred to above, the profession of weaving mentioned in the documents is not to be given much importance when a caste Halba/Halbi is specifically mentioned in such documents.

In the result, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to Halba/Halbi within a period of one month. Till then, non-issuance of certificate shall not come in the way of any person, authority or institution i.e. including respondent No. 4 allowing the petitioner to take admission or to continue his education under reserved category of Halba-Halbi Scheduled Tribe. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In view of disposal of the Writ petition, Civil Application is also disposed of.