Kambli 1 wp6293.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6293 OF 2005 ... Devika Sitaram Gangavane ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.R.K.Mendedkar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Gangal, Spl.Counsel with Mr.Ashok Gade and Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for Respondent No.6 ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & N.D.Deshpande,JJ DATED: 27 th August, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 6 th Kambli 2 wp6293.05 September, 2005 holding that the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe is not valid. The Committee has held that the Petitioner belongs to Thakar Nomadic Tribe. The Petitioner, it is an admitted position, is from Sindhudurg District. 2. The facts, which are relevant in view of the order that we propose to make is that, when the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Constitutional order was made in the year 1950, in so far as Bombay State is concerned, Thakar was not notified as a scheduled tribe. In 1956, the scheduled tribe order was modified and Thakar Tribe along with other Tribe was notified as Scheduled Tribe in relation to some areas. The relevant entry to that effect reads as under: Kambli 3 wp6293.05 (6) (a)In Ahmednagar District:--- | Akola, Rahuri and | Sangammer talukas | | (b)In Kolaba District:- | Karjat Khalapur, Pen, | Panvel and Sudhagad | Thakur or talukas and Matheran | Thakar | including (c) In Nasik District:- | Ka Thakur Igatpuri, Nasik and | Ka Thakar Sinner talukas | Ma Thakur | and (d) In Poona District:- | Ma Thakar Ambegaon, Junnar, | Khed and Mawal | talukas | | (e) In Thana District:- | Thana, Kalyan, Murbad, | Bhivandi,Bassein, Wada, | Shahapur, Palghar, | Jawhar and Mokhada | talukas. | ----- 3. Perusal of the above entry will reveal that so far as Ratnagiri District is concerned, Thakar was not a scheduled tribe. On 21-11-1961 the Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification, which promulgated a list of Nomadic Tribe in the State of Kambli 4 wp6293.05 Maharashtra. Entry No.22 of that list shows that Thakkar (In Ratnagiri District only) to be a Nomadic Tribe. On 13 th October, 1967 the Government of Maharashtra issued another Notification declaring a list of Other Backward Class in the State of Maharashtra. At entry No.156, it was mentioned caste Thakar . Thus, the position on issuance of Government Resolution dated 13 th October, 1967 was that in so far as part Ahmednagar, Kolaba, Nasik, Poona and Thane Districts are concerned, Thakar was a scheduled tribe. In Ratnagiri District it was Nomadic Tribe and in rest of Maharashtra it was Other Backward Class. The Presidential order was amended in the year 1976. In so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, at Entry No.44 Thakar was declared to be a scheduled tribe. The Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification dated 9 th December, 1977. By Kambli 5 wp6293.05 paragraph 3 of that Notification, Entry No. 156 from the Notification dated 13 th October, 1967 was deleted. On 8 th July, 1982, a Notification was issued by the Government of Maharashtra including Thakar in the list of Other Backward Class at serial No.200. That Notification was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition and it was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court. The judgment is reported as, Pandurang Rangnath Chavan v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors., 1998(2) Mh.L.J. 806. The Division Bench set aside the Notification dated 8 th July, 1982. On 2 nd June, 2004, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Notification deleting Entry Thakar at Entry No.22 from the Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 22-11-1961. Thus, as a consequence, Thakar from Ratnagiri District ceased to be a Nomadic Tribe from 2-6-2004. Perusal of the Kambli 6 wp6293.05 order impugned in the petition shows that in paragraph 7 of the order, the Committee has observed that the school leaving certificates in respect of the Applicant and her father show that their caste is recorded as Hindu (N.T.). The Committee has further observed that, that probably might have been done because of the Resolution dated 21 st November, 1961 Thakar in Ratnagiri District ( which was subsequently named as Sindhudurg District) was declared to be as Nomadic Tribe. In paragraph 8, the Committee has observed that the Petitioner belongs to Thakar (N.T.). It appears that this finding was recorded by the Tribunal because of the declaration of the Thakar tribe/caste as Nomadic Tribe by Government Resolution dated 21 st November, 1961, in so far as Ratnigiri District is concerned. However, though the order of the Scrutiny committee was passed on Kambli 7 wp6293.05 6 th September, 2005 and the relevant entry in the Notification of 1961 was cancelled by Notification dated 2-6-2004, that has not been noticed by the Committee. In our opinion, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the Applicant belongs to Thakar Tribe from the Ratnagiri District, it was for the Committee to examine the validity of the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakar in the light of the Resolution of 2004 issued by the State Government. In our opinion, it was for the expert body like the Scrutiny Committee to examine what is the impact of the 2004 Resolution on the status of the Petitioner as a member of Thakar Tribe belonging to Ratnagiri District. 4. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the matter will Kambli 8 wp6293.05 have to be remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 5. In the result therefore, the petition succeeds in part and is allowed. The order impugned in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)