1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2004 (Ku. Anupama Prabhashankar Wanle .v. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims 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 Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 02ND AUGUST, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati (for short “the Scrutiny Committee”), whereby the cast certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati, District Amravati dated 01.12.1993 has been cancelled holding that the petitioner does not belong to Mannewar -Scheduled Tribe. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Scrutiny Committee on three grounds. Firstly, he submitted that pre independence documents submitted/produced by the petitioner in support of her tribe claim were not considered by the Committee in proper perspective. Secondly, he submitted that the school leaving certificate dated 14.07.1941 of her father was not even considered/referred to by the Scrutiny Committee while passing the impugned order; and lastly, he submitted that the Committee has committed grave error of law in treating the tribe `Mannewar' as a sub tribe of `Gond-Scheduled Tribe' and in comparing the traits, characteristic and customs of Mannewar with the traits, characteristics and customs of `Gond – ST'. In support of this contention, Shri Mirza placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra .v. Mana Adim Jamat 2 Mandal (reported in 2006(3) Mh.L.J., 407). Mr. Mirza has not urged any other contention. Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Documents at serial Nos.9 and 10 in the list of documents mentioned in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and submitted that these two documents, of 1928 and 1924 respectively, are of her close relatives and they clearly show that both these relatives belong to Mannewar-ST. He submitted that these documents being pre-independence have highest probative and evidentiary value and they are sufficient to hold that the petitioner also belongs to Mannewar. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has brushed aside these two documents without assigning any reason for not accepting them and for not allowing the petitioner's claim. The documents at serial Nos.9 and 10are school leaving certificates of Devindradas Krushnaswami and Kanhyalal Guruvayya (dated 01.09.1928 and 06.02.1924 respectively). The petitioner has simply stated that they are her blood relatives. However, she has not stated either in the writ petition or before the Scrutiny Committee as to what is her relation with these two persons. We have perused these documents from the original record. The first document produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee shows that Devindradas Krushnaswami was admitted in the school on 01.09.1928 and his caste was recorded as Mannewar. This is a photo copy of the photo copy, purportedly issued by the school authorities on 26.11.1988. When we asked Mr.Mirza to produce the original photocopy duly signed and stamped by the school authorities from which he made the photocopy which was produced on record, he could not and did not produce the same. Thus, the petitioner has failed to produce on record the original photocopy, duly stamped and signed by the concerned authority as true copy, either before the Committee or before this court. Similar is the case of the next document i.e. the school leaving certificate dated 06.02.1924. Moreover, when we specifically asked Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioner to show either from the memo of writ petition or from any other 3 document on record to show as to what is the petitioner's relation with Devindradas and Kanhyalal, Mr.Mirza could not and did not show from record and he stated across the bar that they are the petitioner's blood relatives. The Scrutiny Committee has rejected these two documents against the old school record collected and produced by the vigilance cell before the Committee of the petitioner's father and his brothers. The Vigilance Cell verified from the old school record of the petitioner's father and his two paternal uncles wherein their caste mentioned in 1939 and 1940 was Mennewar (Telangi). Insofar as the petitioner's relationship with the paternal uncles as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner has not disputed the same. Thus, the school record of 1939 and 1940 of the petitioner's father and his (father's) real brothers clearly shows that they belong to Mannewar (Telangi). In view thereof, in our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner based on the documents produced on record and more particularly the documents dated 01.09.1928 and 06.02.1924. Insofar as the school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father dated 14.7.1941 which is mentioned in the list of the documents at serial No.5 in paragraph 6 of the writ petition is concerned, this document, according to the learned Government Pleader, was not produced before the Scrutiny Committee at all. We have perused the entire record and even the list of documents placed before the Committee by the petitioner. This document does not find place in the record. It is referred to by the petitioner for the first time in the writ petition. Shri Mirza vehemently submitted that this document is sufficient to prove that the caste of the petitioner's father, as entered in 1941, is Mannewar. We are unable to accept this submission in view of the old school record of the petitioner's father produced on record by the Vigilance Cell. The school record, as observed earlier, clearly reveal that in 1939 the petitioner's father's caste was entered as Mannewar (Telangi). This document of 1941 was obtained by the petitioner in 1999. This entry as against the original school record 4 of 1939, in our opinion, is of no avail to the petitioner to prove her caste as Mannewar-Scheduled Tribe. From perusal of the impugned order it is clear that despite an opportunity given to the petitioner to produce additional documents in support of her claim, she could not and did not produce any additional evidence. That takes us to consider the next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra .v. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (cited supra). He submitted that the Committee has committed grave error of law in examining the petitioner's claim on the parameters applicable to “Gond” tribe, instead of Mannewar. In other words, he submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has committed grave error of law in comparing the traits, characteristics and customs of the petitioner's caste with the traits, characteristics and customs of Gond-ST. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was wrong in treating the tribe“Mannewar” as a sub-tribe of Gond-ST. Entry No.18 of Part- IX of Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 mentions several tribes and every tribe is independent and it is true that they are not sub castes/tribes of Gond. The relevant observations made by the Scrutiny Committee are in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order. It is true that the Scrutiny Committee has made reference to the traits, characteristic and customs of Gond-ST. In our opinion, merely because the Committee has made reference to “Gond-ST” does not mean that it has compared the traits, characteristics and customs of the petitioner's caste with Gond. As a matter of fact, paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the impugned order clearly discuss about the traits, characteristics and customs of Mannewar and the Committee has compared them with the traits, characteristics and customs mentioned by the petitioner to hold that she does not belong to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. In our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee has not treated “Mannewar” as a sub-tribe of “Gond”. The Committee has considered Mannewar as independent tribe which is clear from the observations made in 5 paragraphs 8 to 11 and 14 of the impugned order. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraph 14 of the order to find out whether the Committee has compared the petitioner's caste with the traits, characteristics and customs of Mannewar-ST or with Gond-ST. “The candidate's mother tongue is Hindi which is not so in Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. The surnames of relatives and social workers from their community are reported as Basantjar, Mandale, Madipar, Metalu, Bonde, Panchagam, etc. These surnames are not associated with the people belonging to Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. It is reported as Durgadevi are their family and community deities which are not found in Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. The marital ceremonies as stated are as per Vedic method. These ceremonies are not found in Scheduled Tribe and do not resemble with that of Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. The ceremonies observed after birth rites performed after death, all that was stated during enquiry do not resemble with that of Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. It indicates that the candidate his father failed in establishing affinity and ethnic linkage with Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe. Though the candidate submitted few records showing the caste as Mannewar, in view of above observation, Vigilance Cell Report and the documents collected by Vigilance Cell Officer it is clear that the candidate does not belong to Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe and the candidate is taking the advantage of similar nomenclature.” Even in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the impugned order the Scrutiny Committee has made detailed reference to the traits, characteristics and customs of Mannewar-ST and to the replies given by the petitioner in respect thereof to hold that the petitioner has failed in establishing affinity and ethnic linkage with Mannewar-ST. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in support of her last contention is of no avail to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order 6 will continue for a period of six weeks from today. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.