Sanjay Chandulal Koturkar v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Thr Vice Chairman And ANR

1 WP2530.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2530 OF 2012 Sanjay s/o. Chandulal Koturkar ..Petitioner

Versus

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ..Respondents Committee and Anr.

Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for the Respondent - State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

DATE : 11th April, 2016 P.C. :- 1.

We heard the submissions at bar, perused the petition, impugned judgment and annexed documents. 2.

The question that arose for our consideration in this case is, whether the Tribe Scrutiny Committee committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe which known as 'Chhatri'.

3.

The documents repeatedly referred to him as "Chhatri" (Tailor), thereby indicating that the word "Chhatri" was synonymous to tailoring work. In all the documents, the word "tribe" is not used, but the word "caste" is used. These documents thus did not prove or even indicate that the petitioner's grandfather was a tribal. It indicated that he belonged to

2 WP2530.12 a caste which is known as 'Telangi Chhatri' (Tailor). 4.

The petitioner did not bring on record anything to indicate that he has similarity with anthropological characteristics of tribals by name "Chhatri". He indicated that his family originally belonged to Chandrapur district. The Vigilance report also indicates that the petitioner and his family members' ancestors traditionally worked as 'tailor'. It is therefore clear that even affinity test is not satisfactorily passed.

5.

What is further peculiar in petitioner's case is that the petitioner and even his near relatives were admitted to School and their caste was not mentioned at all as "Chhatri". He and his relations were described as 'Hindu'. This happened in respect of his all the family members. No one mentioned his or her caste as 'Chhatri'. Everyone avoided to mention caste as 'Tailor' or 'Shimpi' or 'Telgu Shimpi'. In view of these circumstances, we reject the petitioner's claim that he belonged to tribe 'Chhatri'. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment.

6.

It is settled position in law that in a case involving proof of tribe claim, the burden of proving the tribe claim is always upon the person approaching the Committee for validation of his claim. He has to

3 WP2530.12 produce the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinize the documents and material produced by the petitioner. We have no hesitation in observing that in the present case the material produced by the petitioner do not prove his claim. The Scrutiny Committee is not expected to gather the evidence on it's own to prove or disprove the claim of the applicant. As discussed above, the material placed on record i.e. School record as that of the petitioner, his close relatives and family members do not support the claim of the petitioner. In view of this, we do not find any error in the reasons and findings recorded by the Committee. The reasons and findings recorded by the Committee are found to be quite consistent with the material on record. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Committee.

7.

The writ petition is dismissed. However, there there shall be no order as to costs.

[V.L. ACHLIYA, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2016/APR16/wp2530.12