1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3709 OF 2009 PETITIONER : Mayur Motisingh Jaganiya, Aged about 19 years, Occu. Student. R/o 32, Deendayal Nagar, Dharampeth Layout, Nagpur-440 022. - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 2] Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur, through its Dy. Director (RP. 3] Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University at Lonere, Vidya Vihar, Post Lonere, Tah. Mangaon (Kokan Rly.), Dist. Raigad. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Narayan Phadnis, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.S.Fulzele, A.G.P. for Respondent no.1 Mr. A.P.Kalmegh, Advocate H/f for Mr.N.W.Sambre, Adv. for R.No.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 09th June, 2010. P. C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2] By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 29/7/2009, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur (for short “the Scrutiny Committee”). By this order, the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the petitioner's caste claim holding that he does not belong to 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe. 3] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2, and with their assistance, perused the impugned order so also the other material placed on record including photo copies of the Register of Births and Deaths, maintained by Police Station, Jalalkheda (Annexures 'D' & 'E'), to which our specific attention was drawn. Perusal of the material on record shows that except the two documents at Annexure 'D' & 'E' of 1924 and 1926, none of the documents produced by the petitioner, as held by the Scrutiny Committee, support his claim. Almost all the documents, pertaining to his close relatives including his father, show that they belong to 'Javhere (Thakur) or Johari or Jogi Thakur or Lodhi Thakur. Moreover, all the documents are post 1950. The Scrutiny Committee has dealt with each and every document in a proper perspective and has rejected the petitioner's claim on the basis of its 3 finding in respect of these documents so also on the basis of its findings in respect of Affinity Test. The findings of fact recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 16 clearly show that the petitioner's claim did not sustain by way of affinity test. Neither the petitioner not his father could establish affinity and ethnic linkage towards the 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe community. 4] It is against this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the two documents, namely photo copies of the extracts of Births and Deaths Register of the year 1924 and 1926, maintained by Police Station, Jalalkheda. These entries, according to the petitioner, pertains to his great-grandfather. We have perused the photo copies annexed to the petition and also the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in respect thereof in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order. It would be advantageous to reproduce these two paragraphs in order to appreciate whether the findings of fact recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are correct so also the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of these documents. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order read thus :- “11. During the hearing on 04.7.2007, Shri Dilip Ramteke, Jr. Clerk of the Nagpur Collectorate was present before the Committee alongwith the Original Register No. 4 212. The Caste Scrutiny Committee noticed that the entry pertaining to 1924 has been written in a different ink and the vertical and horizontal total of number of births written on the concerned page number 355 does not tally. A photocopy of the said page was given to the candidate on 04.7.2007 during the hearing itself and he was instructed to submit his say on it during the next hearing on 20.7.2007. But, the candidate and his father did not submit their say on 20.7.2007. 12. During the said hearing on 20.7.2007, the Caste Scrutiny Committee inspected a birth extract of 1926 and record and found that the pages of the Register do not tally with the page numbers. The Caste Scrutiny Committee also noticed that the hand-writing and ink of birth and death entries on the same page are different. The handwriting is different and the year and the date of the birth entry is not mentioned. The photocopy of the said birth extract was given to the candidate's father during the hearing on 20.7.2007 and he agreed to submit his say on it within 2 days. However, the candidate's father appeared before the Committee on 04.7.2008 and stated that “ he has no say on the birth extract of 1926” and requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide his son's tribe claim on the basis of available documents and information. However, he was again given an opportunity to record his say on the birth extract of 1926 during his final hearing on 21.7.2009. But, the candidate's father reiterated that “he has no say on the birth extract of 1926” and again requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide his son's case on the basis of available documents and information.” 5] Bare perusal of these two paragraphs show that the relevant entry pertaining to 1924 is written in different ink and the vertical and horizontal total of number of births written on the concerned page number, do not tally. The attention of the petitioner and his father was 5 invited to these entries and they were given time to file their say in respect thereof and the matter was adjourned. On the adjourned date, they did not submit any say and on the contrary petitioner's father requested the Committee to decide the petitioner's claim on the basis of the material on record. Similarly, in respect of the berth extract of 1926, the Scrutiny Committee found that the pages of the register do not tally with the page numbers. It was also noticed that the handwriting and ink of the other berth and death entries on the same page, are different. The Committee further noticed that the year and date of the birth entry was not mentioned. In respect of this entry also, the petitioner and his father were directed to submit their say by the Scrutiny Committee, but they failed to do so and the father of the petitioner, on the adjourned date of hearing, submitted that he had no say in respect of this entry. 6] Mr. Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the extracts and the original register were produced by the concerned department and the petitioner had no access to the said record and therefore, interpolation/tampering cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain these entries so also to cross-examine the person, who produced the original registers 6 before the Scrutiny Committee and since such an opportunity was not given, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the petitioner's claim afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any other contention. 7] As observed earlier, the order of the Scrutiny Committee shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and his father to explain these entries (birth extracts of 1924 & 1926). As a matter of fact, the petitioner's father stated that he cannot file any say in respect of these entries and claim of the petitioner be decided on the basis of the documents and information available on record. Insofar as the petitioner's contention that he was not given an opportunity to cross- examine the person who produced the original registers before the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, also has no merit since the person who produced the original registers, was not examined by the Scrutiny Committee. Moreover, such an opportunity was not sought before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the fact remains that the tampering/ interpolation noticed by the Committee is visible to the naked eyes and, therefore, it has been rightly discarded by the Committee. If these entries were genuine, the petitioner could have produced further 7 documents in support of his claim in respect of his father, his paternal grand-father, uncle, his father's sister, great grand-father's brother etc. As a matter of fact, the documents in respect of these relatives, produced by the petitioner, do not support his claim. 8] We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sayanna .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 268, pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, this judgment is of no avail to the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9] In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition. We are satisfied that the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is based on the findings of fact recorded on the basis of the material produced before the Committee. We find that there is sufficient material on record to sustain the findings. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 10] At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, order dated 29/7/2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee,, impugned in the 8 present writ petition, shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the petitioner to carry this matter further. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale