Khyaliram Mekhlal Dhurve v. Member/Secretary, Schedule Tribes Cert. Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1327/2017 IN WRIT PETITION No. 6871/2017.

Khyaliram Mekhalal Dhurve, Amravati.

-VERSUSMember/Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 07, 2017.

Heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mrs. M.A. Barabde, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1.

2.

As the learned counsel for petitioner has agreed to argue the matter immediately, we have recalled the order dated 31.10.2017 and restored Writ Petition back to file. Misc. Civil Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

............

Writ Petition No. 6871/2017.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Submission is, it was for the Scrutiny Committee to find out when petitioner/his ancestors have migrated to Maharashtra. Insistence is upon the fact that caste 'Gond', is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in Madhya Pradesh, as also in State of Maharashtra. Effort is also made to urge that the consideration of controversy by Division Bench in judgment reported at 2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 77 (Badalsingh Bharosa Rawale .vrs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and another), is incorrect.

3.

We find the arguments erroneous. Merely because caste is recognized in both the States, that does not do way with need of establishing stay in a particular State on a relevant date. Petitioner does not have any documents to show that when Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1949 was pronounced, he/ his ancestors were residing in a area which now forms part of State of Maharashtra.

4.

In above Division Bench judgment, this Court has looked into the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sau. Kusum .vrs. State of Maharashtra ((2009) 2 SCC 109, and answered the

question. Remand was felt necessary in facts of that matter.

5.

Here, though we gave petitioner an opportunity to show such documents of migration, petitioner claims that vigilance could have procured such documents. We therefore, find no case made out warranting intervention. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.