MADHAVI SHASHIKANT UMBARJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadev. The petitioner has also further sought direction to the committee to issue certificate of validity in her favour by validating the caste certificate issued to her on 18.08.2016 by the Competent Authority.

(2.) The petitioner obtained a certificate of belonging to Koli Mahadev and she was desiring persuading her higher education she sought to rely upon the said claim of her caste which is recognized Scheduled Tribe and for its verification her caste certificate was made over to the respondent No.2Committee. In order to substantiate her claim she relied on the document of blood relatives from paternal side which are of preconstititonal period and reflected of the social status of her forefathers of Mahadev Koli, which on enactment of the constitution came to be recognised as Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner also placed reliance on the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.2368 of 1993 in the case of her real uncle from paternal side from Shri.Sharad Shrikrishna Umbarje. This Court by judgment dated 01.03.1996 had disposed of three Writ Petitions filed by the real uncle of the petitioner and Miss.Kanchan Sidanand Umbarje paternal cousin aunt of the petitioner. This Court had given a declaration that the petitioners before it belonged to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe and directed the committee to issue necessary certificate in this regard to the petitioners. The said judgments had attained finality. The petitioner also placed on record the validity certificate granted in favour of the said uncle in pursuant to the directions of this Court. Another judgment from this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.6128 of 2010 in case of one Bhalchandra Sadanand Umbarje the cousin uncle of the petitioner from paternal side is also relied upon by the petitioner where in the committee was directed to issue certificate of validity by a detailed judgment dated 29.11.2010. The said judgment delivered by this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner was referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry and the police Inspector of the Vigilance Cell obtained the entries in the BirthDeath registers in relation to the forefathers of the petitioner. The petitioner was supplied with the copy of the Vigilance Cell report and filed a detailed reply on 04.05.2018. She was also called for hearing on 25.06.2018 and she attended the proceedings before the committee along with her grandfather and cousin uncle Mallikarjun. During the course of hearing before the committee the grandfather of the petitioner placed on record two judgments delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.7846 of 2003 and also judgment in case of Nillappa Mangleshwar Umbarje dated 05.08.2009 in Writ Petition No.6561 of 2008. The petitioner has also placed on record the copies of these judgments along with the Writ Petition. The petitioner also placed on record the validity certificate granted in favour of three close blood relatives, viz, Yashwant Chidanand Umbarje, Ravi Rajkumar Umbarje and Kshitij Yashwant Umbarje issued by the same Scrutiny Committee at Pune. The grandfather of the petitioner who attended the proceedings before the Committee also laid evidence on the ethnological and anthropological traits in order to establish his cultural affinity with Mahadev Koli, recognised as Scheduled Tribe. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the committee failed to take into consideration the voluminous documentary evidence placed on record as well as the judicial pronouncement rendered in favour of the close blood relatives of the petitioner and proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner by impugned order dated 24.07.2018.