Govind Mogia vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

1 WP-5043-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5043 of 2013
CNR No.: MPHC030149522013
GOVIND MOGIA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 21.08.2012 passed
by the High Power Scrutiny Committee, whereby their claim for issuance of
Scheduled Tribe certificates in the category of Mogia Tribe has been
rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners belong to Mogia Tribe, which is included in the list of Scheduled
Tribes for the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that the petitioners
had submitted applications for issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificates along
with relevant documentary evidence, including the caste certificate issued in
favour of their father, records relating to their father's appointment against a
reserved post, school records, revenue documents and other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

2 WP-5043-2013
contemporaneous documents indicating their tribal status.

It is further submitted that the petitioners' claim had earlier been
considered by the High Power Scrutiny Committee, which rejected the same
by order dated 13.10.2008. The said order was challenged before this Court
in Writ Petition No.1889 of 2009, which was allowed vide order dated
02.12.2010, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the
petitioners afresh in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC
241.
Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid directions, the
scrutiny committee has again rejected the claim of the petitioners without
affording them an effective opportunity of hearing and without properly
considering the documentary evidence placed on record. It is contended that
the impugned order is cryptic, non-speaking and does not disclose any proper
consideration of the material submitted by the petitioners.
It is also argued that the report of the Vigilance Officer, which
according to the petitioners supports their claim of belonging to Mogia
Scheduled Tribe, has not been duly considered by the committee. The
petitioners were neither supplied with the relevant report nor afforded an
opportunity to explain any adverse material, if relied upon by the committee.
It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by only four
members of the committee, contrary to the prescribed requirements
regarding its constitution and quorum.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

3 WP-5043-2013
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the confusion

between Mogia Tribe, which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, and
Moghia caste, which is mentioned in the list of Scheduled Castes, had
already been clarified by the State Government through its circular dated
28.02.2005. The petitioners contend that their claim ought to have been
examined in the light of the aforesaid clarification and the directions issued
by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. On these grounds, learned
counsel submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, violative of the
principles of natural justice and contrary to the directions issued by this
Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the
respondents be directed to grant Scheduled Tribe certificates to the
petitioners or, in the alternative, to reconsider their claim afresh in
accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes
the petition and supports the impugned order passed by the High Power
Scrutiny Committee.
It is submitted that the claim of the petitioners for recognition as
members of the Scheduled Tribe has been examined by the competent
scrutiny committee in exercise of its statutory and administrative authority.
The committee is the specialised body entrusted with the responsibility of
scrutinising claims relating to social status certificates and determining
whether the claimants satisfy the prescribed criteria for recognition as
members of a Scheduled Tribe.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the mere fact that certain
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

4 WP-5043-2013
caste or tribe names appear to be similar or certificates have been issued to

other family members does not, by itself, conclusively establish the tribal
status of the petitioners. The claim is required to be examined independently
on the basis of the relevant constitutional provisions, applicable guidelines
and the material available on record.
It is further submitted that the earlier order passed by this Court did not
direct the committee to accept the claim of the petitioners or to issue
Scheduled Tribe certificates in their favour. The direction was only to
reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law. The committee, after
undertaking the requisite exercise and examining the claim, has arrived at a
conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim of
belonging to Mogia Scheduled Tribe.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot claim an
automatic entitlement to Scheduled Tribe status merely on the basis of the
certificate issued in favour of their father or other family members. The
scrutiny committee is required to determine the genuineness of the claim in
accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the findings recorded by the
committee cannot be displaced merely because another view of the material
may be possible.
It is also contended that the impugned order has been passed by the
competent authority after consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter
and does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any
jurisdictional error, violation of a mandatory statutory provision or perversity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

5 WP-5043-2013
in the decision warranting interference by this Court. On the aforesaid

grounds, learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for dismissal of the
writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee
rejecting the claim of the petitioners for issuance of Scheduled Tribe
certificates warrants interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners have primarily questioned the impugned order on the
ground that their documentary evidence, the caste certificate issued in favour
of their father and the report of the Vigilance Officer have not been properly
considered by the scrutiny committee. They have also alleged violation of
the principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the directions
issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
However, upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioners have failed to establish any illegality, procedural infirmity or
jurisdictional error in the decision impugned herein warranting interference.
The mere existence of certain documents indicating the caste or tribal
status of the ancestors or other family members does not, by itself, confer an
indefeasible right to recognition as a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Such
documents are required to be considered along with the other relevant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

6 WP-5043-2013
circumstances and material in accordance with the applicable constitutional

provisions and prescribed procedure.
The earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1889 of
2009 dated 02.12.2010 required the respondents to reconsider the claim of
the petitioners in accordance with law and the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The said direction did not
mandate acceptance of the claim of the petitioners or issuance of Scheduled
Tribe certificates in their favour. The scrutiny committee was required to
undertake a fresh consideration of the claim and arrive at its own conclusion
on the basis of the material available before it.
The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the impugned
decision suffers from any such infirmity which would justify this Court in
substituting its own assessment for that of the competent scrutiny committee.
The grounds raised in the petition, including the allegations relating to
consideration of documentary evidence, the Vigilance Officer's report and
the constitution of the committee, do not establish any illegality of such a
nature as to warrant interference in the present proceedings. The petitioners
have failed to demonstrate that the conclusion arrived at by the scrutiny
committee is liable to be set aside on any legally sustainable ground.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
perversity or procedural irregularity in the impugned order dated 21.08.2012
passed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM

7 WP-5043-2013
dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 11/7/2026
3:00:21 PM