Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, his claim for validation was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee along with necessary documents for the purpose of verification. On 29.6.2019 the Police Vigilance Report came to be submitted in case of the petitioner and on 30.7.2018 the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the said invalidation, the petitioner chose to challenge the same by filing a Writ Petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.909/2021. On 14.11.2022 this Court quashed and set aside the invalidation order and sent back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh. After remand, on 26.4.2023 a fresh Police vigilance report came to be submitted and on 20th June, 2023, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said vigilance report. Thereafter, on 19.7.2023, the Scrutiny Committee again invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. This order is assailed in the present petition on various grounds.

4. We have heard Ms. Preeti Rane, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us through the record of the Scrutiny Committee submits that the Scrutiny Committee has gravely failed in validating the caste claim of the petitioner without considering the oldest and relevant documents. She further submits that the finding of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the documents of the year 1892 to 1896 that the said document is not a conclusive proof because of some alleged contra entries regarding the caste of the forefathers as ‘Kunbi’ is erroneous since it does not consider the reply to the vigilance report in which the petitioner has specifically denied the relationship. It is her further submission that as far as affinity test is concerned, a detailed reply was also filed to the same, which is also not considered. It is her submission that the entire exercise has been done with a pre-determined mind to reject the caste claim. She further submits that the validity certificate granted to her real brother has not also been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, which was a decisive factor.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent supports the finding of the Scrutiny Committee. He submits that high reliance was placed by the petitioner on land record of the year 1892 to 1896, but it was found in the vigilance inquiry that the caste of ‘Ziblya Shama Mana’ was recorded as ‘Kunbi’ which fact is suppressed by the petitioner. He further submits that there are various contra entries which records caste as ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Mani Kunbi Hindu’, and ‘Mani Kunbi’. Thus, the caste claim, in view of the said various contra entries, is suspicious and, therefore, no conclusive findings could have been reached by the Scrutiny Committee. He further submits the document of school leaving certificate of the petitioner cousin great grand-father Shankar Zibal shows caste as ‘Mana’, but the school register shows otherwise. He, therefore, supports the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. We have carefully perused the record of the matter and also considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for the respective parties. As can be seen from the order impugned, the relevant documents are as under :

                   “IMAGE”

                   “IMAGE”

8. The petitioner placed reliance on these documents and some documents were also found in the Vigilance Cell. As far as document No.1 is concerned, it makes a remark that it is found in vigilance inquiry. We have perused the said document which is at page 36. The said document admittedly pertains to account No.35 which clearly shows ‘Mana’.

9. What is interesting to note that the document Nos.1 and 3 in the above table is one and the same document as account No.35 is shown in both documents. But as can be seen from the above table, the document No.3 shows caste as ‘Mana’, but the Scrutiny Committee has recorded it as ‘Kunbi’. Thus, the findings of the Scrutiny Committee apart from being contrary to the record are clearly erroneous since it relies on the same document submitted by the applicant showing caste as ‘Mana’ but goes on to record in the impugned order that the same is ‘Kunbi’. Thus, the said finding is entirely perverse.

10. As far as documents at Sr. No.8 to 11 are concerned, a careful and minute perusal of the said documents reveal that those are the same person Shankar Zibal, who happens to be a cousin great grand-father of the petitioner. What is interesting to note and as also can be seen from the chart above that the caste column mentions different caste of the same person. We are at pains to understand how a caste of a person would change with respect to the said document. When being confronted, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that these four documents pertain to different classes i.e. in different standards when the person was studying. Even this explanation by the Assistant Government Pleader falls flat on the ground since the documents mentioned at Sr. Nos.10 and 11 of above table pertain to the same standard i.e. third standard and the caste mentioned is different. It seems that the Scrutiny Committee is hell-bent to reject the claim of the petitioner and has chosen to multiply the entries of a single person. The said document is also placed on record and we have perused the same. The said document clearly shows that the caste of the person concerned is ‘Mana’.

11. We were not able to come across any document of Shankar Zibel showing the caste as mentioned in Sr.Nos.8,9 and 10. Thus, the approach of the Scrutiny Committee in multiplying the entries of a single document to create a farce that there are various contra entries against the petitioner is an exercise which is highly deprecated and should involve serious consequences.

12. The Scrutiny Committee seems to have lost sight of the fact that the object of its formation is to investigate the caste claim within the parameters laid down by the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, 2000 and as enunciated by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. But it seems that the Scrutiny Committee is acting exactly contrary to the said object and seeing to it that the claims are somehow rejected by placing reliance on documents which are either not in existence or if in existence have less or no probative value. Time and again, we are coming across the cases like the present one and case of multiplying entries of a single person for different classes in which he is studying is nothing but an exercise to deprive genuine claims like that of the petitioner.

13. As can be further be seen from the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner in its reply has specifically denied that as far as Ziblya brother Punjya s/o. Zingu Kunbi is not related to the applicant nor he is any way concern with the same. This aspect has also not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and placing reliance on uncalled documents rejected the caste claim of the petitioner.

14. Furthermore, as far as reliance of the Scrutiny Committee on a declaration made during admission by one Deorao Ganpat Ghodmare submitted the Head-Master of primary School Kalambi, Taluka Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur is concerned, the same also seems to be erroneous for reasons stated below. Firstly, the declaration submitted by the said Head-Master was never put to the petitioner so that he can reply the same. Furthermore, entry Nos.14 and 15 are one and the same entry.

15. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee has continued in its exercise of multiplying the entries so that the number of contra entries is increased. Thus, in our view is clearly erroneous and as stated above the Scrutiny Committee needs to be imposed with costs that would act as a deterrent. Thus, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is nothing but a farce created to multiply the entries as has been stated above.

16. We are, therefore of the considered opinion that the order of the Scrutiny Committee cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and the same warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. We, therefore, pass the following order :

                   ORDER

                   (i) The writ petition is allowed.

                   (ii) The impugned order dated 19.7.2023, passed in Case No.JC/TCSC/NGP/I/243/31/2017, by the respondent is quashed and set aside.

                   (iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of order.

                   (iv) In view of the findings recorded above, we think it fit to impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of this order.

                   (v) If the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur fails to pay the costs to the petitioner within the time as stipulated above, the same may be recovered by the Registry of this Court, as fine imposed, in accordance with the Rules.

                   (vi) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

17. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.