1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W.P. No. 4539 of 2008. Kashitij S/o Arun Jambhule. Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Tribes Claims, Amravati and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P. P. Dhok, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. W. Sambre Government Pleader for R-2 & 3. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 25th November, 2008. Heard Mr. Dhok, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he belongs to “Mana Scheduled Tribe” and a caste certificate to that effect was issued in his favour by the Sub Divisional Officer, Yavatmal on 17-5-2005. Subsequently, he came to be admitted to the first year of B. E. (Electronics and Telecommunication) under the Respondent No.4 College against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribes. As he was admitted against a seat reserved for 2 Scheduled Tribes, his caste claim was subjected to Scrutiny and by the impugned order dated 11-7-2008, the Committee (Respondent NO.1) has invalidated the petitioner's caste claim, and further directed the authority issuing the certificate to take appropriate entries in the register, and cancel the admission of the petitioner as per Section 10(8) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate) Act 2000 (for short the Caste Verification Act). During the course of the verification proceedings, Respondent No.1 directed Vigilance enquiry and the Dy. Superintendent of Police in charge of Vigilance Cell submitted his report on 13-5-2008. The Vigilance Committee pointed out that the following three persons, who were the blood relations of the petitioner from his father's side, belong to “Mana Kunbi” caste. 3 Sr. No. Name of deceased person & caste. Relation with the applicant Caste recorded Occupat ion of father Year 1 Smt. Siti Kondya Mana Kunbi. Fathers paternal aunt Mana Kunbi ----------- ------- 11/03/25 2 Kondya Mana Kunbi Fathers grand father Mana Kunbi ----------- ----- 19/3/1926 3 Smt. Demai Mard Tima Mana Kunbi. Fathers great grand mother Mana Kunbi ----------- ----- 12/01/39 The said report submitted by the Vigilance Cell was made available to the Petitioner with a show cause notice, and he was directed to file his reply and appear before the Committee. Accordingly, he appeared before the Committee on 26-6-2008 along with his father, and the father submitted his written reply on 26-6-2008. Both of them were heard by the Committee. The Petitioner contended that all the above mentioned three persons were not in relation from his father's side and on the contrary, he claims before us to rely upon the extract from birth register in respect of his great grandfather Kondya. 4 He states that the caste of Kondya was shown as “Mana”, and therefore, based on the said document, he was required to be declared as belonging to “Mana Scheduled Tribe”. We have perused the original record as placed before us by the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 Committee. We have also gone through the Vigilance Cell report as well as the statement recorded in writing by the Petitioner's father himself as well as the statement of Sitaram recorded by the Vigilance Cell. In the petition memo, the Petitioner himself has given the family tree, and he admits that Sitaram is the uncle of his father (father's brother). The Vigilance Cell Report shows that when the Vigilance enquiry was made, Sitaram was at the age of 80 years, and in his statement to the Vigilance Cell, he stated that all the above named three persons were from the same family and Kondya S/o Teemaji was his father, and Demai was Kondya's mother. He also admitted that Smt. Siti was Kondya's daughter. This statement made by Siratam before the Vigilance Cell 5 has been supported by the petitioner's father in his statement made before the Vigilance Cell as is evident from the record. What is more important is that admittedly the petitioner's father is in Government service, and he did not take steps to bring before the Committee any record pertaining to his service. The petitioner did not take any steps to issue summons in the name of said Sitaram, and examined him as a witness to counter his statement made before the Vigilance Cell or prove that the above mentioned three persons were not in any way the blood relations of the petitioner. Mere bald statement that they were not his relatives from the paternal side was not sufficient to prove his caste claim. Section 8 of the Caste Verification Act deals with the burden of proof, and states that when an application is made to the competent authority for verification of caste claim by such authority or the Scrutiny Committee, the burden of proving that the applicant belongs to such caste, tribe or class shall be on such claimants/applicants, and as per Section 9 of the said Act, the Scrutiny Committee shall while holding the 6 enquiry under that Act, will have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code 1908, and in particular, in respect of the following matters namely : (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or Office; and (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. It is evident that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden to prove that the above mentioned three persons were not in any way his blood relations from the paternal side. In addition, he did not bring any evidence regarding his father's social status namely that he belongs to “Mana Scheduled Tribe” and while in service of the Government, he had claimed such social status or he 7 produced service record to show that he belongs to “Mana Scheduled Tribe”. On the other hand, the Vigilance Cell report was supported by the statement of Sitaram as well as the Petitioner's father. We, therefore, do not find fault with the view taken by the Committee, and hence, the impugned order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim cannot be termed as erroneous. The said order deserves to be upheld. Hence, the Petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE //Muley//.