1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7162 OF 2010 Ramakant S/o Bajirao More, Age 57 years, Occ-Service as Assistant Police Inspector R/o Mukati, Tq. & Dist.Dhule At present R/o, Flat No.8, Kamathwada, Near Godavari Co-operative Bank, Nashik Dist.Nashik. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nasik. Through its Member Secretary 2] The Director General of Police, Maharashtra State,Mumbai Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Kulaba, Mumbai. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Sagar S.Phatale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Phatake,Standing Counsel for R.1. Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP for the respondents 2. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. 2 DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER GAVAI,J.] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, petition is heard finally. 2] This is another glaring example of non-application of mind by the respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee, Nasik. The petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent no.2 committee thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 3] Shri Phatale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 sons of the petitioner have been found to be belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe and inspite of that , the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by respondent no.2 committee. 3 4] Shri Phatake, learned counsel for the scrutiny committee submits that the scrutiny committee has rightly followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and as such the petition is without substance. 5] In so far as the contention of the respondent committee regarding the present case being covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Murlidhar Thakur is concerned, we find that the view taken by the respondent no.2 committee is totally erroneous. The issue before the Apex Court in the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samiti & Anr. V/s State of Kerala & Another reported in 1994 (1) S.C.C.359. was as to whether the State is empowered to exclude a particular community which is included as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order 1950. By now, it is a settled position of law 4 that the entries in the Presidential Order are required to be taken as it is and it is not permissible for any one to add, alter or amend the said entries. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Sunil M.Thakur held that the judgment of this Court on the basis of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Palghat cited supra, was not sustainable and the case of each of the candidates was required to be considered on its own merit. We are constrained to observe that these judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case. When the scrutiny committee itself has validated the claim of the petitioner’s 3 sons and that too presumably in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 94 cited supra, we see no reason as to why the petitioner’s claim also could not have been validated in view of the validity granted in favour of the petitioner’s 3 sons. If the view taken by the committee is accepted, it will lead to an 5 anomalous situation wherein 3 sons would be found to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the father not belonging to the said tribe. 6] It can thus, clearly be seen that the aforesaid 2 judgments cited by the committee in its order are totally irrelevant in so far as present case is concerned. In any case, the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Thakur has itself directed the individual case to be decided on the basis of the material placed before the committee. In the present case, the validity certificates issued by the respondent no.2 committee in favour of the petitioner’s 3 sons and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the judgment of the Apex Court have been placed on record, the same had not been taken into consideration of the Committee. The 2 sons of the petitioners viz. Jagdish and Dipak have been granted validity certificates by the same committee on 15/6/2005 and and 18/5/2007 respectively. Both these certificates have been granted after 6 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil. It is presumed that the said validations were granted in favour of Jagdish and Dipal after following the procedure as prescribed by the Court in the case of Madhuri Patil including an enquiry by the vigilance cell and the other requirements. However, it appears that inspite of these 2 certificates being granted in favour of the petitioner’s 2 sons, the third son viz. Dharmendra was not granted the certificate and as such, he was required to knock the doors of this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5032/2006 and the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide judgment and order dated 6/10/2006 found that since the 2 real brothers of petitioner - Dharmendra viz. Deepak and Jagdish were granted the validity certificates, there was no reason who the same had not been granted in favour of Dharmendra and as such, allowed the Petition and also directed costs to be paid, which were quantified at Rs.1000/-. 7 Not only this, but dissatisfied with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent committee went in Appeal before the Apex Court being S.L.P.No.2600/07. The Apex Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court and dismissed the S.L.P. leaving the question open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. When the respondent no. 2 itself had validated the claim of the 2 sons of the petitioner and when a validity certificate was granted in favour of third son viz. Dharmendra in accordance with direction issued by the Division Bench and when the Apex Court had refused to interfere with the directions of this Court, we see no reason as to why validity certificate had not been granted in favour of the petitioner. If the contention of the respondent no.2 committee is to be accepted, it will lead to an anomalous circumstance that his sons are belonging to Scheduled Tribe and he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the respondent no.2 committee has failed to apply its mind, to the facts of the case. This is not the only case, but we are 8 coming across various orders passed by the said committee which are examples of total non application of mind and thereby not only requiring the litigants to approach this Court unnecessarily but also burdening the already over burdened jurisdiction of this Court. We find that the approach of the respondent no.2 committee in the present case is totally illegal. 7] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 2/6/2010, direct the respondent committee to issue the validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from today. Rule is therefore, made absolute with exemplary costs which are quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Shri Phatale, learned counsel for petitioner graciously states that he is not interested in the costs and the costs be paid to the High Court Library, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad. Respondent no.2 committee shall deposit the costs with the 9 High Court Library within 2 weeks from today. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp7162-10