Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.3910 of 2008

POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR  Petitioner(s)                          :VERSUS: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS          Respondent(s)

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.11376 of 2010

RANI DATTATRAY PAWAR @ RANI UMESH SHINDE       Petitioner(s)                          :VERSUS: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS          Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned in SLP(C) No.11376/2010. Both  the  petitions  are  filed  by  two  cousin  

(sisters) against the decision of the Scheduled Tribe  Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune, (for  short “Scrutiny Committee”) in Case No.ICSC/MPSC/Pune- 01/2006  decided  on  30th July,  2007  and  in  Case  No.  TCSC/SER/PUNE/19/2006 decided              on 26th  

March,  2009,  whereby  the  claim  of  the  petitioners  belonging to 'Thakar, Scheduled Tribe' was rejected.  Both the petitioners moved the High Court of Judicature  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

at Bombay by way of separate writ petitions being Writ  Petition No.6674 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.5231 of  2009,  which  were  dismissed  by  orders,  dated  8th  

January,  2008  and  4th November,  2009  respectively.  Both the petitioners are relying on common facts in  support of their claim.  They are also relying on the  Certificate  issued  to  Dilip  Pandurang  Pawar,  recognizing his caste to be “Thakar Scheduled Tribe”.  For  the  purposes  of  this  order,  we  shall  make  a  reference to the facts as pleaded by the petitioner in  Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2007.

A  perusal  of  the  order  passed  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee  in  the  case  of  the  petitioner  in  Writ  Petition No.6674 of 2007 would show that she had relied  upon the following documents in support of her claim:  

“I. Original  and  attested  copy  of  caste  certificate  in  respect  of  applicant  showing caste as Hindu Thakar, Scheduled  Tribe  bearing  No.030405248,  dated  11.7.2003  issued  by  the  Deputy  Collector, (C.F.C. Pune)

II. Attested  copy  of  school  leaving  certificate  in  respect  of  applicant  wherein caste is shown as Hindu Thakar  and date of admission 02.06.88.

III. Attested  copy  of  high  school  leaving  certificate  in  respect  of  applicant  

2

Page 3

wherein caste is shown as Hindu Thakar  and date of admission 12.06.95.

IV. Attested  copy  of  school  admission  abstract  in  respect  of  Laxman  Tukaram

Thakar  (applicant's  grandfather)  wherein  caste  is  shown  as  Thakar  and  date of admission is not recorded.

V. Attested  copy  of  school  leaving  certificate  in  respect  of  Sakharam  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's  cousin  grandfather) wherein caste is shown as  Thakar and date of admission 23.08.23.

VI. Attested  copy  of  caste  certificate  showing caste as Hindu Thakar, Scheduled  Tribe  and  attested  copy  of  validity  certificate  issued  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  Pune  vide  No.TRI/TCSC/Pune- 1/2001/2998, dated 19.07.2002 in respect  of  Dilip  Pandurang  Pawar  (applicant's  uncle).   Also  the  original  affidavit  sworn by Dilip Pandurang Pawar showing  the relationship with the applicant.  

VII. Attested  copy  of  death  certificate  in  respect  of  Rama  Pipalu  Thakar  (applicant's great grandfather) wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date  of  death is 10.12.22.

VIII.Attested  copy  of  death  certificate  in  respect  of  Bakula  Kom  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's great grandmother) wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date  of  death is 21.10.18.

IX. Attested  copy  of  death  certificate  in  respect  of  Banu  Kom  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's great grandmother) wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date  of  death is 15.04.39.

X. Attested  copy  of  death  certificate  in  respect  of  Chandri  Bap  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's  father's  aunt)  wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date of  death is 10.11.17.

3

Page 4

XI. Attested  copy  of  death  certificate  in  respect  of  Parvati  Bap  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's  father's  aunt)  wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date of  death is 22.11.22.

XII. Attested  copy  of  birth  certificate  showing that one female child is born to  Tukaram  Rama  Thakar  (applicant's  grandfather) wherein caste is shown as  Thakar and date of birth is 19.11.23.

XIII.Unattested copy of death certificate in  respect  of  Babaji  Bin  Ramu  Thakar  (applicant's relative wherein caste is  shown as Thakar and date of death is  04.10.12.

XIV. Unattested copy of birth certificate in  respect  of  Shevanti  Tukaram  Thakar  (applicant's  father's  aunt)  wherein  caste is shown as Thakar and date of  birth is 11.04.33.”

The  Vigilance  Cell  conducted  separate  enquiries  into the claim made by both the petitioners.  During  the course of enquiry, statement of Suryakant Pandurang  Pawar (petitioner's father) in Writ Petition No.6674 of  2007, was recorded on 31st January, 2007, in which he  stated that:

“Kuidaivat  is  Palicha  Khandoba,  Jejuricha  Khandoba and Rekaidevi. From our family one  person use to go to sing Banya once in every  year at Khandoba of Pali.  My mother knows to  sing  'Banya'  in  various  occasions.   The  surnames  in  our  community  are  Toraskar,  Gavali,  Gaikwad,  Pawar,  Shinde,  Savant,  Bhosale, Londhe, Salunke, Kadam, Chavan etc.  The  main  festivals  of  our  community  are  

4

Page 5

Divali,  Dasara,  Gauri  Ganpati,  Holi,  Akshaytrutiya, Gudhipadava, etc.  There is no  dowry system in our community.  The marriages  in  our  community  are  performed  by  the  Bramhins.  I am unaware about Umbarya-Umbari,  Pitarya-Pitari, Avanji, Padekhot, Phadki etc.  customs of our community.  In our community,  the cow's milk is extracted and we drink it.”

The  Vigilance  Cell  also  examined  the  school  admission general register issued by the Head Master,  Z.P.  Primary  School,  Kudal,  Taluka  Javali,  District  Satara, the abstract of which reveals the following  information:

“

Sr.  No.

Regl.  No./  Book  No.

Name of  the  Student

Caste Date of  Admission

Relation  with the  Applicant

1. 15/1 Tukaram  Bin Rama  Thakar

Bhat 1.8.1890 Great-    grandfa- ther

2. 184/1 Hariba  Bharu  Thakar

Bhat 5.3.1891 Relative

3. 108/1 Hariba  Narayan  Thakar

Bhat 10.10.1892 Relative  

4. 38/1 Tukaram  Rama  Thakar

Bhat 1.8.1890 Great  grandfa- ther

5. 169/1 Tukaram  Bin Rama  Thakar

Bhat 1.8.1890 Great  grandfa- ther  

6. 8/2 Ramchandra Marathe 04.07.08 Cousin  

5

Page 6

Tukaram  Pawar

Grandfa- ther

7. 151/2 Laxman  Tukaram  Thakar

Thakar 4.1.1918 Relative  

8. 60/3 Sakharam  Tukaram  Thakar

Thakar 23.08.1923 Cousin  grandfa- ther

9. 354/3 Raghunath  Tukaram  Pawar

Hindu  Marathe  

25.06.1929 Cousin  grandfa- ther  

10. 30/4 Anusaya  Ni.  Tukaram  Pawar

Hindu  Marathe

10.03.1919 Grandfa- ther's  sister

11. 32/4 Tara  Tukaram  Pawar

Hindu  Marathe

27.06.1941 Grandfa- ther's  sister

“

In order to comply with the rules of natural  justice,  a  copy  of  the  aforesaid  vigilance  enquiry  report  was  served  on  the  applicant  –  petitioner  and  she  was  asked  to  submit  her  response to the same.  The petitioner was also  called for personal hearing on 6th March, 2007.  The  petitioner  appeared  before  the  Scrutiny  Committee on 20th March, 2007.  In her response,  she stated that :

“b) The name of the great grandfather  has been reflected three times and his  caste has been mentioned as Bhat.  In  

6

Page 7

old  records  people  were  identified  by  the  name  of  their  caste  and  it  was  surname which is used to be written as  caste.   Therefore  caste  of  the  great  grandfather  came  to  be  entered  as  Thakar.   However,  inadvertently  the  caste is recorded as 'Bhat'.  Save and  except  this  is  plated  (sic) entry  specific of my grandfather namely Laxman  Tukaram  Thakar  mentions  his  caste  as  Thakar.”   Although first part of the last sentence does  

not make sense, we presume that she has asserted  that ‘Bhat’ has been wrongly stated to be caste of  her  grandfather.  In  its  order  dated  30th July,  2007,  the  Scrutiny  Committee  also  noticed  in  Paragraph 5 as follows:-

“5. At  the  time  of  personal  hearing,  the  applicant  has  filled  in  'Sunavani  Patrika' and given following information  about  traits,  characteristics,  customs  and traditions of her community:- a) Traditional  deity  of  their  community is 'Waghdev' b) Kuldaivat  of  their  family  is  'Pimpreshwar, Wakadeshwar' c) Main festivals of their community  are 'Dasara' Holi, Divali. d) Jat Panchayat of their community is  “Padakhot, Jamatganga/Panchayat” e) Traditional  dance  of  their  community  is  “Kambad  Nach,  Dhol  Nach,  Dhamadi  Nach,  Gauri  Nach,  Bhondala  Nach.'”

7

Page 8

Upon examination of the entire material on  record,  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  in  both  the  matters, rejected the claim of the petitioners.  

Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel  for the petitioners submitted that the Scrutiny  Committee  was  not  justified  in  ignoring  the  voluminous  record  produced  by  the  petitioners,  which  pertained  to  the  pre-constitution  period  showing that the petitioners belonged to ‘Thakar  Scheduled  Tribe’.  He  submitted  that  as  the  Committee was not headed by a Judicial Officer,  the  High  Court  ought  to  have  scrutinized  the  orders of the Scrutiny Committee with care and  caution.  The  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  ignoring the crucial issue that the same Scrutiny  Committee had verified the cast claim of Dilip  Pandurang  Pawar,  the  paternal  uncle  of  the  petitioners,  in  both  the  matters.  The  Scrutiny  Committee without any justification discarded all  the  documentary  evidence  produced  by  the  petitioners on the ground that the oldest record  i.e. school record of Shri Tukaram Thakar, great  grandfather of the petitioners dated 1st August,  1890 recorded his caste as ‘Bhat’. The decision  

8

Page 9

rendered by the Committee in both the cases, being  arbitrary, was liable to be set aside.

Ms.  Asha  Gopalan  Nair,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents,  had  pointed  out  that the Scrutiny Committee, after considering all  the  documents,  decided  the  claim  of  the  petitioners. She has made reference to the report  of  the  Vigilance  Officer,  which  indicated  that  from 1st August, 1890 to 27th June, 1941, the caste  of the petitioners’ relatives from paternal side,  is  clearly  recorded  as  ‘Bhat’,  ‘Marathe’,  ‘Thakar’, ‘Hindu Maratha’ and ‘Hindu Marathe’. She  further  pointed  out  that  the  Committee  has  observed  the  discrepancy  in  the  information  submitted  by  the  applicant  and  the  applicant’s  father in W.P. No.6674 of 2007 on different days  and different places. The statement made by the  father was recorded without any forewarning, is  spontaneous. It has been correctly accepted by the  Scrutiny Committee to be reliable. The Scrutiny  Committee also noticed that, on the other hand,  the information given by the applicant, at the  time of hearing was made upon notice and after  careful  thought.  The  Scrutiny  Committee  has,  

9

Page 10

therefore,  observed  that  it  has  been  made,  by  making a reference to some literature, only with  an intention to grab the benefits and concessions  available to Scheduled Tribes.  

We  have  given  careful  thought  to  the  submissions of the learned counsel.  

Before  we  proceed  further,  it  would  be  appropriate  to  notice  the  observations  made  by  this Court in  Kumari Madhuri Patil and another  versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and  

Others [(1994) 6 SCC 241],which are as follows :  

“15. The question then is whether the  approach adopted by the High Court in  not elaborately considering the case is  vitiated by an error of law. High Court  is not a court of appeal to appreciate  the  evidence.  The  Committee  which  is  empowered  to  evaluate  the  evidence  placed before it when records a finding  of  fact,  it  ought  to  prevail  unless  found vitiated by judicial review of any  High  Court  subject  to  limitations  of  interference with findings of fact. The  Committee  when  considers  all  the  material  facts  and  records  a  finding,  though  another  view,  as  a  court  of  appeal  may  be  possible,  it  is  not  a  ground  to  reverse  the  findings.  The  court has to see whether the Committee  considered  all  the  relevant  material  placed before it or has not applied its  mind to relevant facts which have led  the  Committee  ultimately  record  the  

1

Page 11

finding. Each case must be considered in  the backdrop of its own facts.”

Keeping in view the ratio above, let us now  examine the fact situation in the present matters.  As  noticed  earlier,  the  Scrutiny  Committee,  in  both  the  cases,  has  noticed  that  number  of  documents  from  1890  to  1941  showing  that  the  family members of the petitioners did not belong  to the ‘Thakar Scheduled Tribe’, their caste being  variously indicated as ‘Bhat’, ‘Marathe’, ‘Thakar’  and ‘Hindu Marathe’, were deliberately withheld by  the  petitioners  at  the  time  of  making  the  application before the caste Scrutiny Committee.  The  Scrutiny  Committee  also  noticed  that  the  petitioners failed in the affinity test as the  information supplied by them was at variance with  the  information  given  by  Suryakant  Pandurang  Pawar, father of the applicant, in Writ Petition  No.6674  of  2007.  On  a  careful  analysis  of  the  entire  material,  the  Scrutiny  Committee  has  concluded that the certificate issued in favour of  Dilip Pandurang Pawar would be of no assistance to  the petitioners as the documents discovered by the  Vigilance Cell relating to local school register  

1

Page 12

from 1st August, 1890 to 27th June, 1941 clearly  proved that the caste of the family members and  predecessors of the petitioners was recorded as  ‘Bhat’, ‘Thakar’, ‘Marathe’ and ‘Hindu Marathe’.  

Upon examination of the reasons given by the  Scrutiny Committee in both the matters, we are  unable  to  accept  the  submissions  made  by  Mr. Sudhanshu Choudhari that the High Court has  committed  any  error  in  affirming  the  decision  rendered by the Scrutiny Committee in both the  matters. In fact, the decision rendered by the  High Court would fall squarely within the ratio  laid down by this Court in the case of Kumari  Madhuri Patel (supra). The conclusions recorded by  the Scrutiny Committee are reasonable and fully  supported  by  the  material  placed  on  record.  Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Scrutiny  Committee, and affirmed by the High Court cannot  be  said  to  be  either  perverse  or  based  on  no  evidence.  

In view of the above, we find no merit in  both  the  Special  Leave  Petitions.  Accordingly,  both the special leave petitions are dismissed.  

1

Page 13

………………………………………………………J.     [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR]

…………………………………………………… J.

[M.Y. EQBAL] New Delhi; March 07, 2013.

1