SAU. JAYASHRI BHASKAR GOSAVI Vs. VISHWANATH KRISHNATH PANKE & ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 3896-3897 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 12, 2016
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 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 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.
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.