Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 25236 OF 2021
1. Kum. Shruti Nivarutti Hainalkar ) aged years, Occupation : Student )
2. Master Shravan Nivarutti Hainalkar, )
Occupation : Student, Minor through ) mother and natural Guardian )
Smt.Madhavi Nivrutti Hainalkar, ) residing at 15-B, Koli Samaj Society, )
Vijapur Road, Solapur – 413 004 )
Dist. Solapur ) ….. Petitioners
Tribal Development Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny )
Committee, Pune Division, Pune ) through its Member Secretary, having its ) office at Kapil Towers, C-Wing, 5th
Floor, )
Near RTO Office, Pune – 411 001, )
Dist. Pune )
3. Commissioner and Competent Authority,)
State CET Cell, having its office at )
New Excelsior Building, 8th
Floor, )
A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001)
4. Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional )
Officer, North Solapur Sub Division, )
Solapur, Dist. Solapur )
KVM
Institute of Management Career, )
Development and Research Solapur, )
156-B, Railway H.D.High School Campus,)
Solapur – 413 001 ) ….. Respondents
Mr.C.K.Bhangoji, a/w. Mr.T.V.Jadhav, i/b. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the
Petitioners.
Mrs.P.J.Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.
Mr.Sameer Khedekar for the Respondent no.3 – CET CELL.
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 9th December, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2 committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioners which was issued by the respondent no.4 competent authority. KVM
3. The petitioners have impugned the order on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners however invited our attention to the Vigilance Report signed by Mr.S.A.Patil who was one of the member of the caste scrutiny committee. It is contended that the said Mr.S.A.Patil once having been appointed as a Vigilance Officer and has submitted report in the same matter, could not have been part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel submits that in view of this admitted position, the entire order passed by the caste scrutiny committee is nullity and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Ms.Gavhane, learned A.G.P. on instruction tenders a copy of the letter dated 14th September, 2021 in another matter in support of her contention that there is no provision under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 that the Vigilance Officer who has submitted a report while making an enquiry into the caste claim of the applicant in the same matter cannot be a part of the same Caste Scrutiny Committee before whom the KVM Vigilance Officer has submitted a report.
5. Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 clearly indicates that if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place of residence and original place from which the applicant hails and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the town or city or place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts about the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may be.
6. The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian of the applicant for the purpose of verification of their Tribe, of the applicant. After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turn scrutinize the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. In case, the report of the KVM Vigilance Cell is in favour of the applicant and if the Caste Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the Caste Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate.
7. Rule 12(8) provides that if the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall issue a show cause notice to the applicant and also serve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer by registered post with acknowledgment due. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has to give an opportunity to deal with the said Vigilance Cell Report.
8. Rule 13(2) (b) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 provides that the finding recorded and the opinion expressed, if any, by the Vigilance Officer shall not be binding on Scrutiny Committee nor can be used as evidence, in support of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category claim. KVM If the scrutiny committee is not satisfied with the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell, scrutiny committee has to record the reasons as to why the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell is not accepted.
9. In our view, the role of the Vigilance Cell is separately prescribed under the said Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder. The role of the Vigilance Cell is to assist the Caste Scrutiny Committee while considering the caste claim of an applicant. The report of the Vigilance Cell is not binding upon the Scrutiny Committee. In our view, the member of the Vigilance Cell thus cannot be the part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Officer who is one of the member of the committee, cannot be judge of his own cause.
10. The submission of the learned A.G.P. that the other three members of the committee were part of the Vigilance Cell and even if one of the member of the Committee was from Vigilance Cell would KVM not materially affect the decision of the Scrutiny Committee deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Even one member of the Vigilance Cell having given opinion in the same matter cannot act as the member of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of four member in this case is vitiated on that ground.
11. A perusal of Rules 11 and 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 would clearly indicate that the constitution of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and Vigilance Cell are totally different. Vigilance Cell has to work under the control and supervision of the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee. Similar provisions are also found in Rules 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003.
12. We accordingly pass the following order:- (a) The impugned order dated 9th December, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2 Committee is quashed and KVM setting aside. The caste claim of the petitioner is restored to file before the respondent no.2 committee for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 9th December, 2021. It is made clear that the respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee shall not include Mr.S.A.Patil who was part of the Vigilance Cell enquiry. (b) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall decide the claim expeditiously and not later than eight weeks from today.
13. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. [R.N.LADDHA, J.] [R.D.DHANUKA, J.]