TEJESHKUMAR S/O DAKR... v. THE STATE OF MAHARAS...

submitted his proposal along with necessary documents for his caste verification to the Committee on 08.10.2012.

5. Dissatisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner, the committee forwarded the proposal to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry. Accordingly, on the conclusion of an enquiry, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the Committee on 02.01.2015, observing that two documents from the years 1930 and 1961 pertaining to the grandfather and father of the petitioner were found adverse to the claim of the petitioner. The said entry depicts the caste of his ancestors as 'Koshti'. Since the adverse entries, such as those of 'Koshti', were noticed, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation regarding such entries. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and submitted his explanation along with the documents. Having offered an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, considering the documents on record, the Committee vide impugned order dated 29.12.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Ms. Tejal Agre, holding for Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the

3

petitioner, in support of his claim, has produced as many as eight documents wherein his caste is shown as Halba/Halbi. She further submitted that in the document of 1957, their caste is shown as Halbi (Koshti), and the document of 1962 pertains to his mother, showing her caste as Halba. However, the Committee has not considered the said documents and has given undue importance to the documents from the years 1930 and 1961. In fact, the document of 1930 pertains to one Kusan Mangru, whose caste is shown as Koshti, with whom the petitioner has denied the relationship. Hence, the said document cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. The Committee has relied upon the said document and rejected the petitioner's claim. Therefore, she canvased that the finding given by the Committee is contrary to the documents on record and liable to be set aside.

7. To buttress her contentions, she has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court:

1. Writ Petition No. 2571/2001(Sou. Priya w/o. Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee ("Priya Parate");

2. Writ Petition No. 720/2015 (Sandhya d/o. Gulabrao Sonkusare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ("Sandhya Sonkusare");

3. Writ Petition No. 2329/2004 (Vijay s/o. Ramrao Dhakite

4

Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Others;

4. Writ Petition No. 5095/2021 (Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others;

5. Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2023) SCC OnLine Sc 909); ("Priya Gajbe")

6. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 326 ("Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat");

7. Writ Petition No. 4157/2005, (Vinayak s/o. Narhari Nandanwar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee and others) ("Vinayak Nandanwar") She submitted that in view of the observations made in the judgments above, "the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test to form the basis for the rejection of the petitioner's claim". She has also submitted that area restrictions have been removed. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations in paragraphs Nos. 4 and 7 in Writ Petition No. 4157/2005 and propounded that merely because some stray entry as 'Koshti' recorded in the documents would not hamper the claim of the petitioner as other documents denote that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, she has urged that in view of the observations made in the judgments above and documents on record, the petitioner is entitled to relief as claimed.

5

8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. D.P. Thakare for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has strenuously argued that during vigilance enquiry, they found two documents of the years 1930 and 1961 pertain to the ancestors of the petitioner wherein caste of his ancestors was mentioned as Koshti. The petitioner failed to explain the said entries. Therefore, the entry in the document for the year 1930, being the oldest document, has more probative value than the subsequent documents which the Committee has considered. He further submitted that by filing an explanation to the Committee, the petitioner has tried to show that he has no concerns with Kusan Mangru @ Bodal Mangru, but factually, the record depicts that Kusan Mangru is the cousin grandfather of the petitioner. Lastly, he propounded that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden that lies on him, and therefore, rejection of the claim is just and proper, and he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. We have appreciated the rival contentions of the parties, perused the documents on record and gone through the citations relied upon by the petitioner.

6

10. At the outset, it appears that the petitioner, to substantiate his claim, has produced eight documents pertaining to himself, his father and his mother from 01.05.1957 to 6.8.2012, wherein their caste is shown as Halba/Halbi (Koshti). The oldest document is from 1957 and pertains to his father, wherein the caste is shown as Halbi (Koshti). Likewise, on perusal of the document found during the Vigilance Enquiry, those documents are from 01.04.1930 to 30.05.1961 pertaining to his cousin grandfather and father. In the explanation submitted, the petitioner averred that no person named 'Kusan Mangru' is in his family. His family is not concerned with 'Kusan Mangru'; therefore, he has disputed the document of 1930. We do not find substance in the said contentions, as while recording the statement of the petitioner's father by Vigilance Cell, he has shown a family tree (Genealogy of the family), wherein he mentioned 'Bodal @ Kusan' as his uncle. He has not disputed his relationship with 'Bodal @ Kusan'. In addition, the petitioner also mentioned Bodal as his cousin grandfather. That being so, it would not be proper to say that Bodal @ Kusan has no concern with the petitioner.

7

11. As per Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ("the Act", for short) burden castes on the petitioner to prove that he belongs to Halba/Halbi caste. But, he failed to discharge such a burden. He failed to explain the adverse oldest entries of the years 1930, 1957 and 1961 pertaining to his cousin, grandfather, and father. It is pertinent to note that these three documents are the oldest, and their caste is shown as Koshti/Halbi Koshti. However, the subsequent documents show their caste as Halba/Halbi, but the petitioner failed to explain the said adverse entries, which are from the pre-independence era and the oldest one and have more probative value than the subsequent documents. As such, from the available documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has discharged the burden as provided under Section 8 of the Act, thereby proving that he belongs to the 'Halba/Halbi' Scheduled Tribe.

12. As far as the satisfaction of the affinity test, the legal position is now clear from the cases of Priya Parate, Mah. Adiwasi

8

Thakur Jamat and Priya Gajbe that "the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test." Therefore, in our view, it would not be necessary to go into the aspect of the affinity test in detail.

13. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sandhya Sonkusare and Vinayak Nandanwar and tried to canvas that as per the observations made therein merely because some stray entries as 'Koshti' are recorded in the documents that itself would not affect the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. However, a perusal of the said judgments shows that in both the decisions, there were pre-constitutional entries stating that they belong to the 'Halba or Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, those entries are prior to the subsequent documents wherein their caste is shown as Koshti and therefore, in both the judgments, it was observed that the oldest entry pertains to the Halba/Halbi caste and has more probative value than the subsequent entries in which their caste was shown as Koshti. However, in the case at hand, the facts are different than those of the authorities above. In this case, the entries of the years 1930, 1957 and 1961 are the oldest entries wherein the caste of the ancestors of the petitioner is shown as "Koshti", and documents on

9

which the petitioner is relying are subsequent to those documents wherein their caste depicts as Halba/Halbi. Therefore, the observations made in the judgments above are of hardly any assistance to the petitioner in support of his claim.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alternatively argued that the occupation of the petitioner's family was weaving and, therefore, might have their caste denoted as Koshti instead of Halba. However, we do not find substance in her contention in that regard, as the petitioner failed to explain the adverse entries that appeared in the documents prior to the independent era.

15. For the above discussion, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to the "Halba/Halbi" Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the Committee, in our view, is justified in recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he belongs to the 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. As such, the petition is devoid of merit, and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Rule stands discharged in the above terms. No costs.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

R. Belkhede,

P.A.

10