Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3896-3897 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 29633-29634 OF 2015 ]

SAU. JAYASHRI BHASKAR GOSAVI                Appellant (s)                                 VERSUS

VISHWANATH KRISHNATH PANKE & ORS.           Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.   1. Leave granted.   2. The  dispute  raised  in  these  cases  essentially  pertains to a claim by the appellant that she belongs  to  the  Scheduled  Tribe  community  named,  'Hindu  Gosavi'.   There  is  no  dispute  that  her  husband  belonged  to  Hindu  Gosavi  Scheduled  Tribe.   The  allegation was that, on the basis of the caste status  of  her  husband,  the  appellant  had  procured  a  certificate to the effect that she belonged to the  Scheduled Tribe community namely, Hindu Gosavi.  

3. There cannot be any dispute that a wife cannot  claim the tribal status of her husband.  The tribal  status should be based on one's independent roots.   

4. The  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee,  namely,  Regional  Caste  Certificate  Verification  Committee  No.  1  for

Page 2

2

SC, ST, VJNT, OBC and SBC, Solapur (in short, "the  Committee")  in  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  by  order  dated  22.08.2014,  cancelled  the  certificate  originally granted to the appellant on 24.10.2002 to  the  effect  that  she  belonged  to  the  Hindu  Gosavi  Tribal community.  

5. The order dated 22.08.2014 was challenged before  the High Court unsuccessfully and thus, the appellant  is before this Court.   

6. Inviting reference to the family tree produced  before us along with additional documents and also  the orders passed by the Committee in the case of the  children of the appellant's real brother and orders  dated  21.11.2013  and  03.01.2014  and  various  other  certificates  of  the  members  of  the  family,  it  is  submitted  that  the  appellant  is  also  entitled  to  claim the same tribal status.   

7. The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-State,  inviting  reference  to  the  case  of  "Raju  Ramsing  Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors." reported  in  (2008)  9  SCC  54,  submits  that  merely  because  another Committee has granted a particular Scheduled  Tribe  status  to  other  members  of  the  family,  it  cannot be held that the person aggrieved by denial of

Page 3

3

the same status be given the same treatment.  It is  submitted  that  it  could  be  possible  that  those  certificates could have been issued wrongly.      

8. We have no quarrel with the settled proposition  of law.  But the question here is whether all these  relevant  aspects  have  been  considered  by  the  Committee.   

9. On going through the impugned orders passed by  the the High Court and the Committee, we find that  the contentions advanced by the appellant have not  been considered by the Committee.  Therefore, in the  interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to grant  an  opportunity  to  the  appellant  to  approach  the  Committee afresh by filing additional documents and  producing evidence.   

10. The  appeals  are,  hence,  disposed  of  with  a  direction to the Committee that in the event of the  appellant approaching the Committee within a period  of  two  months  from  today  by  filing  additional  documents  and  requesting  for  adducing  evidence  thereof,  the  Committee  shall  consider  the  request  made  by  the  appellant  and  thereafter,  shall  pass  appropriate orders in the matter expeditiously.  

Page 4

4

11. We  make  it  clear  that  neither  the  impugned  Judgment  nor  the  orders  already  passed  by  the  Committee  shall stand  in the  way of  the Committee  considering the matter afresh, as above.   

No costs.       .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [R. K. AGRAWAL ]  

New Delhi; April 12, 2016.