Full Judgment Text
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
JUDGMENT
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 1
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
JUDGMENT
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 2
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.
JUDGMENT
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 3
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.
JUDGMENT
Page 4