ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Advocate Shri N.C. Phadnis for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Ms Prabhu for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Ms U.A. Patil for the respondent No.3.
2. The claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halbi Scheduled Tribe has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 10/05/2005. This Court has on 11th November, 2008 while issuing Rule in the matter granted interim relief.
3. Advocate Shri Phadnis submits that all documents produced by the petitioner or then looked into by the Vigilance Cell mention tribe only Halbi and not a single document mentioning any other tribe or caste has been found out. In this situation, the Committee could not have discarded the documents and conclude that the affinity test is not satisfied. He contends that since the documents are genuine and undisputed, the affinity test may not be that significant.
4. The learned A.G.P., on the other hand, submits that the Scrutiny Committee has given the petitioner necessary opportunity. Statement of his
2
brother has also been recorded and thereafter a finding that Affinity Test is not specified, has been reached. The finding is not perverse. The Committee has found that in Vidarbha region sub-caste Halbi of Caste Koshti is also recorded as Halbi and therefore, entries are not decisive. It is contended that the burden was upon the petitioner to prove his tribe by leading evidence on affinity and customs but the petitioner has failed to do so.
5. We have perused the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The scrutiny Committee has looked into almost 44 documents. These documents are not found interpolated by it. It will be futile to mention each and every document, however, the document at Sr.No.3(7) looked into by the Committee is Birth Register of a child born to grandfather of the petitioner on 17/11/1933. The Birth Register of real uncle on 15/11/1944 is also produced and consequential entry on 01/07/1957 recording caste of uncle as Halbi is also produced. These documents expressly record caste as Halbi. There are about 44 such documents and we find that in all of them, the position is same. The documents were before the scrutiny Committee, it has carried out vigilance exercise but the Vigilance Authorities could not come across any document which recorded caste/tribe of the petitioner or his ancestors as "Koshti".
6. Though the Committee may be right in recording that in Vidarbha region the community by name Halba-Halbi Koshti exists that by itself cannot
3
be the reason to doubt the correctness of the claim made by the petitioner. Had the Committee come across some documents wherein petitioner's caste was recorded otherwise, the exercise undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee would have been valid.
7. The learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to vigilance report which refers to the statement of brother of the petitioner given on 01/07/2003. In that statement the petitioner has disclosed the native place of his ancestors as Khed, Tahsil : Morshi, District : Amravati. The Vigilance Authorities mentioned that they have verified school admission register of Khed Zilla Parishad Primary Marathi School for a period from 1920 to 1950 but they could not come across the name of the father of the petitioner or his grandfather.
8. As already noted supra, this observation of the Vigilance Authorities does not render any of the 44 documents relied upon by the petitioner inadmissible.
9. In the present facts, there is no material indicating that the caste recorded as Halbi is sub-caste Halbi of Koshti caste. In other words, there is no material to doubt the correctness of the claim of the petitioner.
4
10. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10/05/2005 and direct the respondent No.1 Committee to issue necessary validity in favour of the petitioner within three months from today. The petition is thus, allowed and disposed of. No costs.
( Z.A.HAQ, J ) ( B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
RRaut..
5