S.A. Bobde, J.@mdashRule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 5-5-2000, by which, the petitioner''s caste claim that he belongs to ""Halba"", Scheduled Tribe,
has been negatived on the ground that in the extracts of school admission register, issued by the Head Master, the caste in respect of petitioner''s
grandfather, uncle and other relatives is clearly recorded as ""Koshti"".
3. The main challenge by the petitioner is that the Police Vigilance Cell of the Committee neither collected any information regarding the social
cultural traits, customs etc. in respect of the petitioner, nor did it make an enquiry as to anthropological and ethnical traits, deities, religious
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. According to the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to ""Halba
who have taken to weaving. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner''s caste claim that he belongs to ''Halba'' has been negatived on the
ground that the caste in respect of the petitioner''s grandfather, uncle and other relative is recorded as ''Koshti'' in the school admission register of
the Nagarparishad Primary School, Shindhi Railway. Prima facie, there seems nothing wrong in these observations of the respondent-Committee
and its finding that the petitioner belongs to ''Koshti'', which is O.B.C. and not ''Halba'' Scheduled Tribe.
4. There is however, serious dispute raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to the import of the word ''Koshti''
appearing in the extracts.
5. Apart from the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent-Committee, this Court requested Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel to
address the Court as to main contentions raised by the petitioner, as amicus curiae.
6. Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel submitted that mere existence of the words ''Koshti'' in the same caste certificate would not ipso facto
negative the claim of ''Halba''. He submitted that even in the classical work on the subject, i.e. ''Castes and Tribes of Central Provinces'' by Russel
and Hiralal, there is an observation that ''The Halbas appear to be an off shoot of the primitive Halba Tribe, who have taken to weaving"". He
further submitted that there are several authorities on the subject, which point out to the fact that occupation of weaving does not ipso facto
negative character of Scheduled Tribe, i.e. ''Halba''. According to the petitioner, even in the census of India of the year 1901, Vol. VIII, Berar Part
I, there is mention, which reads thus: ""......The Halbas who are weaver......"". It is well known that weavers in Central Provinces are known as
''Koshti''. Koshti community consists of weaver. Thus, it is obvious that there is some degree of overlapping in that there are Halbas, who have
taken to weaving and there are weavers, who are not Halbas. It is obvious that determination of caste in such situation, can only be effective, if the
following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others, , are complied with rigorously. In para No. 5 of the said judgment, while laying down the guidelines, regarding the manner in which the
Police Vigilance Cell of the respondent Committee, should function, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
5. ......He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of
the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the proforma, in particular,
of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.
7. The intention of the above guidelines is clearly in order to ensure the enquiry into anthropological and ethnological traits, rituals, customs, mode
of marriage, etc. of the tribes or community with reference to a particular candidate. In other words, the intention is that the Police Vigilance Cell
should conduct an enquiry into the aforesaid aspects of a particular candidate and submit a report therefore to the Committee, so that the
Committee has all the necessary inputs to enable it to match the anthropological and ethnological traits, rituals, customs etc. followed by the
candidate''s family, so that they are matched with the known anthropological and ethnological traits of a particular tribe to which the candidate
claims to belong. I see no reason as to why this particular enquiry should not be conducted with full rigor.
8. In the present case, the petitioner''s caste claim has been negatived as aforesaid. It is contended that the Police Vigilance Cell report does not
indicate any enquiry about socio-cultural traits, customs, etc.
9. In reply to the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Committee has filed its affidavit in reply, stating that the Police Vigilance Cell of the
Committee has conducted a thorough enquiry and collected certain information from the school and found school entries of the grandfather etc.
wherein the caste ''Koshti'' is mentioned. This is part of the order itself. Though the Committee claims to have stated that the petitioner did not give
any details regarding his cultural traits or rituals etc. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Committee, fairly states that
the record does not show that the enquiry having been made from the petitioner regarding the facts enumerated in para No. 5. Guidelines No. 5 in
Madhuri Patil''s case (supra) suggests peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies,
method of burial of dead bodies etc.
10. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel, further states that the petitioner did not fill up the necessary details in the proforma provided to him before the
Committee. According to the learned Counsel, the procedure adopted by the respondent-Committee, is that, the candidate is required to fill up a
proforma, in which, certain particulars, as regards, traditional God and Goddess of caste; details of deities of the family; traditional festivals and
celebrations etc. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not fill up certain columns in the questionnaires and kept them blank.
11. Mr. Patil, further submitted that after filling up the said proforma by the petitioner, the Police Vigilance Cell was sent to the place of the
petitioner, where the petitioner resides, in order to have informations furnished by him, verified. The learned Counsel submits that since the
petitioner did not fill up certain columns, as aforesaid and kept them blank, the Police Vigilance Cell of the Committee did not feel it necessary to
verify those aspects. It is not possible to uphold this contention. There is every possibility that a candidate does not furnish the entire information.
That would not relieve the Police Vigilance Cell of the Committee from the task of finding out those aspects, which are absolutely necessary to
ensure fair and proper authentication of the caste claim. The Committee failed to do so, I am satisfied that the procedure in making the enquiry, has
not been followed since the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, etc. as spelt out in para No. 5 of the said judgment of
Madhuri Patil''s case (supra), which aspects were crucial in determining the petitioner''s caste claim. That must be made and report in that regard
must be submitted to the Committee by the Police Vigilance Cell, before the respondent-Committee gives its verdict regarding the caste claim of
the petitioner. It is conceivable that the Police Vigilance Cell does not get answer to the questions, which it asks either from the candidate or the
parents or such other persons contemplated by said guidelines. In such a case, it is obvious that the Police Vigilance Cell must report that the
candidate or the person, whose caste claim is to be decided, did not disclose the relevant information. In my view, this is necessary in put to enable
the Committee to arrive at a proper conclusion regarding the caste claim of the candidate, particularly, in view of the importance, each caste
certificates have assumed.
12. It is however, made clear that after receiving all the relevant inputs, the authority of the Committee would apply its own knowledge of the
anthropological and ethnological traits etc. to the inputs and find out whether the petitioner belongs to a particular caste or tribe as claimed by him.
The Committee is ultimately fact finding authority and its finding of fact would not liable to be interfered with, except as indicated by the Apex
Court in para No. 14 of its judgment in Madhuri Patil''s case (supra).
13. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel further relied on the paragraph No. 28 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court (Mohite, J.),
delivered in Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, which reads as under:
28. To further elaborate the point, it will not be open to any person to contend that the ultimate order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated
merely because the investigation has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant wording given in direction No. 5 as reproduced
hereinabove. If there is any Lacuna in the vigilance cell report or in the documents enclosed therewith, it is always open to the concerned person to
bring this to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee in the enquiry contemplated under the direction No. 6. The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme
Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute.
14. I am of view that the aforesaid observations cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that the Police Vigilance Cell can ignore
its duty of making an enquiry into the peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, etc. as observed by the Apex Court. I
understand that the aforesaid observations of Brother Mohite, J., merely allow the investigating authority ""free play in the joints"" and allows latitude
on the question as to how to conduct the investigation. It however does not allow latitude as to what is required to be investigated. In the category
of what is required to be investigated would fall as to the anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of the persons/family and existence of documents evidencing the caste of the concerned person. Indeed, in para 5 of
the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Apex Court dealt with ""how an investigation should be conducted as well as ""what"" should be investigated.
The latitude allowed in the judgment of Brother Mohite, J., is only in respect of the former and not the latter. The judgment in Ku. Chaya
Namdeorao Binekar v. State of Maharashtra and others, rendered by Brother Mohite, J., in Writ Petition No. 1683/2000 is, therefore, of no help
when an enquiry conducted by Police Vigilance Cell is devoid of essential and basic investigation necessary for procuring necessary material for
verifying a persons''s caste.
15. In the circumstances of the case, I am of view that the impugned order of the Committee deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside
and the matter is remanded to the respondent-Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law, by following the procedure, prescribed by the
Apex Court in Guideline No. 5 in Mahduri Patil''s case. In particular, the respondent Committee shall direct its Police Vigilance Cell to make an
enquiry regarding those aspects, referred to in Guidelines No. 5, as aforesaid and ensure that the report of the Police Vigilance Cell covers those
aspects, viz. anthropological and ethnological traits etc. The Committee shall evaluate the caste claim thereafter. Besides, having regard to the
observations of Russel and Hiralal, in the book referred to above, the Committee shall consider the tenability of the petitioner''s claim that he is
''Halba'', even though the same school certificates of petitioners relatives show that they belong to ''Koshti''. This observation is made particularly,
since there seems great authority for the proposition that the occupation of weaving, i.e. ''Koshti'' does not automatically negate the claim that a
person is ''Halba''. After considering the anthropological and ethnological traits etc. and the report to that effect, the Committee would be certainly
free to arrive at its own decision as to the validity of the petitioner''s caste claim.
16. In the result, the impugned order of the respondent-Committee is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Committee with the aforesaid
directions.
17. This Court expresses its gratitude to Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel, who acted as amicus curiae and assisted the Court.
Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be given to the parties to act upon.