1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1625 OF 2005 Narendrakumar Pandharinath Dontulwar & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. R. K. Mendadkar with Mrs. Helen Koli-Mandlik for the Petitioners. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : KSHITIJ R. VYAS, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. March 20, 2006. P.C. (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : Rule, returnable forthwith by consent. By consent and at the request of Counsel, taken up for final disposal. 2. By an order dated 26th October 2004, the Committee for Scrutiny of Tribe Claims invalidated the claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner, had moved an earlier petition, W.P. 2180 of 1996, to impugn a previous decision of the Scrutiny Committee. A Division Bench of this Court, by a Judgment and Order dated 23rd July 2003, set aside the decision of the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the documentary material which had been relied upon in support of the 2 tribe claim had not been duly considered by the Committee. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the following observations: “In so far as caste claim pertaining to Narendrakumar Pandharinath Dontulwar is concerned, we find that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the diverse documents produced in support of his caste claim. The candidate submitted documents of his relatives and the orders whereby castes of such relatives were verified and they were held belonging to Mahadeo Koli but the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not attach due importance to the said documents by observing that order in one case cannot by itself induce and influence a similar order in a subsequent case, may be of relation. This approach of Caste Scrutiny Committee is not justified as caste is acquired by birth and if caste of blood relations of the candidate has been held to be belonging to a particular caste by a competent court or forum, obviously, it has to be held that the candidate belongs to a same caste to which his relatives belongs. All in all, the consideration of the matter in respect of caste claim of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2180 of 1996 is also not proper.” Upon remand, the Committee once again invalidated the claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. That led to these proceedings. 3. At the hearing of the present petition, the Petitioner sought to rely specifically on three documents in support of his tribe claim: (i) A death extract in respect of Rukmabai Vithal Dontulwar 3 of the year 1941; (ii) A death extract of Vithal Pappayya Dontulwar who expired on 11th December 1945; and (iii) A School Leaving Certificate of Vithabai Prabhu Dontulwar. By an order dated 29th June 2005, the AGP was directed to produce the original registers of the aforesaid documents. Among the documents of which copies have been produced by the Learned AGP, is an extract from the General Register of the Municipal Girls' School at Solapur. The entry relating to Vithabai Prabhu Dontulwar, who was born on 1st June 1939 at Sr.No. 197 shows that the candidate belongs to the Mahadeo Koli community. The candidate was stated to have left the school on 29th January 1949 in the Second Standard. The second document is a death extract from the Solapur Municipality of Rukmabai Vitthal Dontulwar who expired on 16th May 1941. The deceased is shown to have belonged to the Mahadeo Koli community. There is also a School Leaving Certificate issued to Vithabai Prabhu Dontulwar, according to which the aforesaid person is stated to belong to the Mahadeo Koli community. The originals of the document at (ii) above have not been produced. Prima facie, it would appear that the documents of which copies have been tendered by the AGP are of some antiquity. Both the death extract of Rukmabai and the entry in the General Register of 4 Vithabai are prior to independence and necessarily, therefore, prior to the Presidential order. A copy of the genealogy submitted by the Petitioner has been annexed to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents and this would show the relationship between Vithabai, Rukmabai and the Petitioner, Narendra. 4. The Research Officer in the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee has filed an affidavit in reply in which on the other hand he has adverted to the documentary material relating to two other cousins elder to the Petitioner in which in the School Register and Birth Record, the entry on caste shows the endorsement 'H. Koli' and 'Koli'. There is, therefore, on the one hand, material which has been produced and relied upon by the Petitioner, also of some antiquity, in which the community of the persons concerned who are prima facie related to the Petitioner is shown as Mahadeo Koli and documentary material to which a reference has been made in the reply where the caste is recorded as 'Hindu Koli' or 'Koli'. 5. This was a matter for the Scrutiny Committee to decide after a review of all the material on record. Both, the acceptance and the rejection of a caste claim are matters of serious 5 consequence. The acceptance of a caste or tribe claim results in recognising the entitlement of the person to whom a validity certificate is granted to the benefit of constitutional and statutory protection conferred upon classes for whom reservations are made. The rejection of a caste or tribe claim, on the other hand, disentitles a person to the benefit of reservations resulting in a concomitant denial to present and future generations in the family. The order of the Scrutiny Committee determines status and is an order in rem. Recognition of status as a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or, for that matter, as a part of the OBC, must be carried out with care and due circumspection so as to ensure that benefits that are meant for those who genuinely belong to the reserved classes are not usurped by persons who do not actually belong to the reserved categories for whom the protection is intended. Once granted to a member of a family, a certificate of validity has necessary consequences since the status of blood relations and generations that would follow therefrom would be determined by the decision. The Scrutiny Committee discharges an important adjudicatory function and consistent with the discharge of that function, is the need for the Scrutiny Committee to discharge its duty conscious of the onerous 6 responsibilities that are cast upon it, coupled with an awareness of the important social consequence which emanates from the decision. A great degree of care has to be bestowed by the Scrutiny Committee on its work and all the material that has relevance to the decision in a particular case must be duly assessed. It is for the Scrutiny Committee to investigate into the genuineness, authenticity and probative value that is to be attached to the documentary material before it. The Committee cannot exclude from its consideration, relevant documentary material at its discretion or rely upon a selective part of the documentary record of its proceedings. 6. In the present case, the Committee has, despite the directions contained in the order of remand that was passed by the Division Bench of this Court, clearly failed to consider all the relevant pieces of documentary evidence. We have adverted to the documentary material relied upon by the Petitioner and the genealogy on which the Petitioner relies to establish the relationship with those who featured in the documentary record, in order to consider as to whether a full determination has been made. We are of the view that the state of this matter warrants a 7 fresh determination by the Scrutiny Committee after due consideration of all the documentary material afresh. 7. At the same time, we must emphasise that the Petitioner must make a full and candid disclosure of all the material in his possession. In the affidavit in reply of the Research Officer, it has been submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed his real address and that he initially misguided the Scrutiny Committee in regard to his correct address as a result of which the authorities were seriously handicapped in conducting the verification of the family members as disclosed. This is unfortunate. Applicants before the Committee cannot believe that they engage in a game of hide and seek – hide all that is inconvenient and test the probability of the Committee not seeking all that was material. The Scrutiny Committee has, therefore, submitted that it has not been able to verify the exact relationship between the Petitioner and the persons mentioned at pages 63, 65 and 67 of the petition. At page 65 and page 67 are respectively the School Leaving Certificates of Devindra Dontulwar and Vithabai Dontulwar. The Scrutiny Committee has sought a direction to the Petitioner to disclose the exact relationship between the Petitioner and aforesaid persons so 8 as to enable the Committee to make a home and school enquiry through the Vigilance Cell. The direction as sought by the Scrutiny Committee would be fair and proper in our view. There shall be a direction to that effect. 8. In these circumstances, this petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the following directions: -(i) The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 26th October 2004, is quashed and set aside with a view to enable the Committee to arrive at a fresh determination of the claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe; -(ii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 3rd April 2006 at 11 a.m. on which date the Scrutiny Committee would issue further directions in the matter. The Petitioner is directed to furnish to the Scrutiny Committee, correct information in regard to his original address, place of origin, the genealogy and such information as the Petitioner may be required to furnish by the Scrutiny Committee; -(iii) It would be open to the Scrutiny Committee to cause a 9 further enquiry to be conducted by the Vigilance Cell; -(iv) The Scrutiny Committee shall dispose of the proceedings before it upon remand, after giving an opportunity consistent with the principles of natural justice, to the Petitioner preferably within a period of six months from the date of the first hearing. 9. The Petition shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Dr.D. Y. Chandrachud, J.