(1) wp9627­7796­11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9627 OF 2011 Dinesh Ramesh Thakur, Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Ordinance Factory Estate, Subhash Nagar, Type 1/19/147, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ­ 32. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Home) (Rural), Thane Rural, Tq. & Dist. Thane. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7796 OF 2011 Vina Eknath Saindane @ Vijaya Pramod Thakur, Age : 43 years, Residing at 11, Shivsagar Apartment, Pathare Park, Ambarnath (East), District Thane. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ­ 32. (2) wp9627­7796­11 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, through its Member Secretary, having its office at Nandurbar, District Nandurbar. 3. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika through its Chief Accountant (W & S Deptt.), Room no. 300, 3rd Floor, Mahanagarpalika Marg, Boribandar, Mumbai. 4. Executive Magistrate, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 6. Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, the Regional Unit of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, having its office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai ­ 51. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15395 OF 2011 IN W.P. 7796 OF 2011 Adivasi Mahasang, Nandurbar Through its Regional President Shri Suhas Vechya Naik                       APPLICANT VERSUS Vina Eknath Saindane @ Vijaya Pramod Thakur and others          RESPONDENTS .... Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate with Mr.A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate in W.P.No.9627/2011. Mr.   R.K.   Mendadkar,   Advocate   with   Mr.   A.S.   Bayas, Advocate in W.P.No.7796/2011. (3) wp9627­7796­11 A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P. No. 9627/2011 and for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 in W.P. No. 7796/2011. Advocate for the respondent­Committee Mr. P.P. More, Advocate in W.P. 9627/2011. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate in W.P. No. 7796/2011. Advocate for the Intervenor Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Intervenor. AND Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, as an Amicus Curiae in both the Writ Petitions. (Appointed) .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING    : 5th JANUARY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING  : 28th MARCH, 2012 JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Civil Application no.15395 of 2011, seeking intervention   in   Writ   Petition   no.7796   of   2011   is allowed,   for   the   reasons   stated   therein. The applicant   is   permitted   to   intervene   in   the   Writ Petition. (4) wp9627­7796­11 3. In these Petitions, common questions of law have arisen upon rejection of the claims of the Writ Petitioners,   by   the   respondent­Scheduled   Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, that they belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 4. One of the grounds in common for rejection of the claims of each of the petitioners is that mere old   entries   in   the   school   record   that   either   the petitioners or their ancestors shown as belonging to Thakur Caste, has no relevance and as such, one of the factors for determination is as to  whether the petitioners or their ancestors had migrated from the area for which the Thakur tribe and other sub­tribes of Thakur were declared as Scheduled Tribe before the removal of area restriction by  Act No.108 of  1976. The respondent­Scrutiny Committee has held that the removal   of   area   restriction   by   Act   No.108   of   1976 would not enable any person belonging to any tribe/ community   to   claim   the   status   of   Thakur   Scheduled Tribe, and he will have to establish that he or his predecessors   have   migrated   from   the   earlier prescribed area.. (5) wp9627­7796­11 5. Since the said common question had arisen in the   present   Petitions,   the   Writ   Petitions   were clubbed together by the Court. Further, finding that an   important   issue   concerning   the   status   of   large number  of persons would be  involved,  the Court has requested   Shri   S.B.   Talekar,   learned   Advocate,   to appear as an Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court in the matters. Shri Talekar has graciously accepted to act as such and the submissions made by him bear out our expectations. 6. The   common   reasons   given   by   the   Scrutiny Committee in each of the matter, on this aspect, in short, are as under:­ . That   Thakur,   Thakar,   Ka­Thakur,   Ka­Thakar, Ma­Thakur,   Ma­Thakar   are   included   in   the   list   of Scheduled   Tribes   of   Maharashtra   at   serial   no.44. Further, Thakar is  included in  the list of Nomadic Tribes  at serial no.22. These people lead nomadic way of life, who move from village to village and are mainly found in Ratnigiri and Sindhudurg districts. Thakur   is   an   advanced   caste,   known   as   Thakur, (6) wp9627­7796­11 Kshatriya­Thakur, Rajput­Thakur, Sindhi­Thakur, Pardeshi­Thakur,   Vaishya­Thakur,   etc. Further, Thakur   is   also   found   in   Balutadar   castes   such   as Grambhat, Bramhabhat. Therefore, it is important to verify whether each of the applicants had proved his claim as belonging to Thakur, i.e. a Scheduled Tribe, listed   at   serial   no. 44   in   the   list   of   Scheduled Tribes   of   Maharashtra. Merely   because   the   caste Thakur   appeared   in   the   documents   would   not   clearly distinguish   the   social   status   of   the   incumbent. Therefore,   besides   necessity   of   affinity   tests   by considering   traits,   characteristics   and   traditional customs of the claimant, it is also necessary to find out as to whether the claimants or  their  ancestors have migrated from any place situated in 25 Tahsils of   five   districts   of   Western   Maharashtra   as   were listed in the list of Scheduled Tribes prior to the removal of area restriction of 1976 i.e. between 1956 and   1976. The   intention   behind   removal   of   area restriction was to entitle the tribal persons who are migrated and staying outside the restricted area to claim   Scheduled   Tribe   status. However,   those   who belonged to different communities do not (7) wp9627­7796­11 automatically become eligible to claim such status of Scheduled Tribe. 7. On the basis of these reasonings and finding that neither the petitioners nor their ancestors had migrated from 25 Tahsils alongwith other grounds and reasons   recorded   by   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   the claims   of   these   petitioners,   that   they   belong   to Thakur Scheduled Tribe were negativated. 8. Before   adverting   to   the   arguments   advanced by  learned counsel  for the  parties, the history as regards the status of Thakur as Scheduled Tribe qua restricted area is necessary to be borne in mind. 9. The President had initially promulgated the Constitution   (Scheduled   Tribes)   Order,   1950   on   6th September, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution. As regards the then State of Bombay, in Part III of the Schedule of the Presidential Order of 1950, entry no. 21   was   dealing   with   "Thakur". Thus,   sofar   as erstwhile   Bombay   State   was   concerned,   Thakurs   were declared to be the Scheduled Tribes. (8) wp9627­7796­11 10. On   25th   September,   1956,   the   Parliament enacted   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956 inter­alia to amend the said Order of 1950 and certain areas of 25 Tahsils from six districts like Ahmednagar, Sindhudurg etc. were declared as areas for Thakur or Thakar including Ka­Thakur, Ka­Thakar, Ma­Thakur, Ma­Thakur. 11. After   two   decades   thereafter,   the   Advisory Committee   appointed   by   the   Department   of   Social Security, Government of India has made its report on the   question   of   revision   of   the   lists   of   the Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in   various other States, including the State of Mahrashtra. The Committee opined that due to the area restriction, no person   could   be   legally   regarded   as   a   Member   of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of Constitution unless he belongs to the listed caste or tribe and also resided in the specified locality. In the   opinion   of   the   Committee,   this   has   led   to   the anomalous situation as the members of the same caste or tribe from ethnical or social point of view were deprived   of   the   special   privileges   and   benefits (9) wp9627­7796­11 merely because they resided in different parts of the same State. Such area restriction was also criticized within and outside the Parliament as it operated as a clog   on   social   mobility,   as   the   communities   would confine   themselves   to   the   specified   area   lest   they lose   the   special   privileges   or   benefits   by   moving outside the specified areas. In view of the report of the   Advisory   Committee,   ultimately,   the   bill   was presented and the Parliament enacted the Act no.108 of   1976   viz. Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 4 of the said Act of 1976   provided   for   deletion   of   the   provision   as regards entry no.44 in relation to the area. In this background,   since   1976   entry   no.44   in   the   relevant Scheduled Tribe Order dealing with Maharashtra, now reads as under:­ "44. Thakur,   Thakar,   Ka­Thakur,   Ka­Thakar, Ma­Thakur, Ma­Thakar...." 12. While   the   arguments   from   the   side   of   the petitioners revolved around the claim that in view of the removal of area restriction, an enquiry into the fact as to whether a person or his ancestors belonged (10) wp9627­7796­11 to   the   areas   which   were   earlier   specified   for   the purposes   of   the   said   Scheduled   Tribes,   would   be against   the   mandate   of   Parliament,   learned   counsel for the Scrutiny Committee, Mr. P.S. Patil submitted that as one of the tests to determine as to whether a particular person belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, enquiry in this regard is not impermissible. 13. Mr. S.B.   Talekar,   learned   amicus   curiae, however, submitted that for a considerable period of time, though there is a stupendous advancement in the social   and   economic   life   of   the   country,   the Government has not appointed any Advisory Committee since   1976   to   look   into   the   various   aspects   of revision of the lists. He therefore, with his usual persuasive skill, advanced his submissions and wanted us to enlarge the scope of the present Writ Petitions and to issue directions to  the Government of  India for appointment of a new Commission, as is provided by the Constitution of India. 14. However, in view of the limited issue before us, we are not inclined to enlarge the scope of the (11) wp9627­7796­11 present Petition and would confine ourselves to the question   involved   in   the   present   Writ   Petitions including   the   common   question   of   permissibility   or otherwise of examining the migration or otherwise of the   petitioners   or   their   ancestors   from   the   area earlier provided in the list. 15. False   claims   of   belonging   to   a   particular caste or tribe, appear to have increased in view of the special treatment permitted by the Constitution of India. The phenomenon though in recent past has grown tremendously, the same is not unknown. 16. Mahabharata, the great epic of India gives an illustration of great mythological figure 'Karna' in   this   regard. Feeling   the   dire   necessity   of acquisition   of   technique   of   Brahmastra,   Karna approaches Master Parshuram with a false representation that he belongs to Brahmin caste which solely, according to Parshuram, was qualified to have the   said   Brahmastra   vidya   (technique). After rigorous tutelage under Parshuram for one year, Karna obtains Brahmastra vidya from him. However, on the very last day of  his training period, a misfortune (12) wp9627­7796­11 occurs,   which,   according   to   Parshuram,   reveals   the true caste of Karna. While, Guru Parshuram takes a nap on the lap of Karna, in a forest, an insect gnaws the thigh of Karna. Sensing the warmth of the blood oozing   from   the   wound,   Guru   Parshuram   suddenly awakes. He starts questioning Karna, as according to Guru Parshuram, a great tolerance shown by Karna in remaining steady, though an insect gnawed his thigh, is   a   sole   characteristic   of   a   'Kshatriya   Varna'. Ultimately,   Karna   had   to   admit   that   he   was   not Brahmin. A curse befalls Karna from Parshuram to the effect that at the very juncture when Karna would be in dire need to use Brahmastra­Vidya, he would forget the same. 17. Whether the determination of characteristic of a Kshatriya by Guru Parshuram, is a scientific or unscientific method, is not required to be considered here. The question as to whether a particular person belongs to a particular caste or tribe, however, has vexed   the   sociologists,   legislators   and   the   judges alike. In order to fulfill the dream of having an egalitarian   society,   the   Constitution   of   India (13) wp9627­7796­11 provided     for     definite     advancement     of         the under­privileged section of our society in all walks of life. Number of phonyes however started claiming and still are claiming to be of a particular caste or tribe for whom the benefits are provided. 18. The joint committee on the bill inter­alia to  provide for  the inclusion in and exclusion from the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in its   report   dated   17th   November,   1969   had   vide paragraph no.20 clause (iv), while dealing with the recommendations   for   amendment   to   the   Constitution (Scheduled   Tribes)   Order,   1950,   inter­alia   reported as under : "(iv) For the specification of communities   as   scheduled   tribes,   the Committee   adopted   as   the   criterion indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolations, shyness of contact with the community at large and backwardness. ....." 19. ....." 19. In   "Shilpa   Vishnu   Thakur   v.   State   of Maharashtra and others" 2009 (5) AIR Bom R 478, the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 37 has adverted to   a   monograph   by   Prof. R.K.   Mutatkar,   Honorary (14) wp9627­7796­11 Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pune, entitled `Tribal Identity: Policy Issues'. The broad parameters   to   be   applied   in   determining   the   tribal characteristics   are   given   in   the   said   monograph, which are as follows : (i) Primitive traits; (ii) Distinct culture; (iii) Geographical isolation; (iv) Distinct dialect; (v) Animism; (vi) Clan systems; (vii) Shyness of nature; and (viii) Backwardness. 20. The   main   thrust   of   arguments   of   both   the sides   was   on   the   scope   of   and   limitation   on   the enquiry   in   reference   to   the   above   characteristics could be made in individual cases by the respondent Scrutiny Committee and consequently the courts. While battery of the learned counsels for the petitioners relied in catena of cases as well as the minutes of (15) wp9627­7796­11 the discussion held in the Parliament on the subject, the   foremost   support   was   sought   from   the   ratio   in "Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi Vs. State of Kerala 1994 (1) S.C.C.   359". On the other   hand,   learned   counsel   Mr.P.S.   Patil   for   the respondent­Scrutiny   Committee   relied   on   various judgments   of   this   Court,   including   the   Full   Bench Judgment   in   the   case   of   "Shilpa   Vishnu   Thakur   Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2009(5) A.I.R. BOM (R) 478". 21. I)Palghat   Jilla   Thandan   Samudhaya   Samrakshana Samithi Vs. State of Kerala 1994 (1) S.C.C. 359. The   Supreme   Court   of   India   was   dealing   with   the question   as   to   whether   the   claimant   residing   in Palghat district of Kerala was belonging to Thundan Scheduled   Caste   or   not. The   State   Government   had asserted   that   there   was   no   Thundan   Community   in Palghat district, except in certain parts of Chittur taluka. The State Government also claimed that when it had made certain enquiries after the inclusion of (16) wp9627­7796­11 the Thundans in the Scheduled Castes Order by reason of   amendment   Act   of   1976,   it   was   found   that   some sections of   Ezhavas of the Malabar area were also called Thundans but they had nothing common with the Scheduled   Caste   Thundan. In   view   of   the   Scheduled Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   Order   (Amendment)   Act, 1976, the Thundan Community throughout the State of Kerala came to be included in the list of Scheduled Castes. In 1984, the State Government of Kerala had issued   an   Order   that   all   its   earlier   Orders   were cancelled and Thundans throughout the State of Kerala would be treated as members of the Scheduled Castes. This   Order   was,   however,   modified   by   another   Order dated 24th November, 1987, specifying that though a person from the Thundan Caste throughout the State of Kerala would be treated as member of Scheduled Caste, while   issuing   such   caste   certificate,   the   revenue authorities should ascertain after proper verification   that   the   person   concerned   belongs   to Thundan caste and not Ezhavas/Thiyyas. . In   the   circumstances,   the   Supreme   Court (17) wp9627­7796­11 noted   that   once   in   view   of   the   provisions   of   the Constitution   (Scheduled   Castes)   Order,   Thundans throughout  the State of Kerala  were entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste, it was not open to the State   Government   to   say   otherwise,   as   it   had purported   to   do   in   the   1987   Order. It   was   also further declared that it was not open to the State Government   or   indeed   to   courts   to   embark   upon   an enquiry   to   determine   whether   a   section   of Ezhavas/Thiyyas   which   was   called   Thundan   in   the Malabar   area   of   the   State,     was   excluded   from   the benefits given to Thundan Scheduled Castes. II)   Nityanand Sharma and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and others (1996) 3 S.C.C. 576 The Supreme Court in this case also held that it was not   permissible   for   the   Courts   to   consider   whether Lohars or Lohras are declared to be Scheduled Tribes. III) Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development 1994 (6) S.C.C. 241 In   this   case,   the   Supreme   Court   was   considering whether   Kolis,   a   backward   class   in   the   State (18) wp9627­7796­11 Maharashtra   could   be   declared   as   Mahadeo   Kolis­a Scheduled   Tribe   in   the   State   of   Maharashtra. The Supreme Court held that it had no power to declare them   synonymous   or   as   equivalent   to   the   tribes specified in the Order. IV)  Heikham Surchandra Singh and others. Vs. Representative of "LOIS" Kakching, Manipur (A Scheduled Caste Uplift Body) and others (1997) 2 S.C.C. 523 It   was   again   reiterated   in   this   case   that   for   the purposes   of   Constitution,   Scheduled   Tribes   defined under   Article   366   (25)   as   substituted   by   the subsequent   Act   and   the   II   Schedule   thereunder,   are conclusive   by   adding   "though   evidence   may   be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the   community   which   claims   the   status   of   Scheduled Caste or  Scheduled  Tribe  was, in  fact,  included in the Scheduled concerned, the Court is devoid of power to   include   in   or   exclude   from   or   substitute   or declare   synonymous   a   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or a group of such caste or (19) wp9627­7796­11 tribe." V) State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind Katware and others 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 In this case, the same principle was reiterated when the claimant therein claimed that his tribe as Halba Koshti also stands included in entry no.19 which has listed Halba, Halbi as Scheduled Tribe. VI)   Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2009(5) A.I.R. BOM (R) 478 The   Full   Bench   of   this   Court,   in   this   case,   was required   to   decide   the   question   relating   to   the standards   which   have   to   be   applied   for   determining whether   or   not   a   claimant   belongs   to   a   designated Scheduled Tribe. The Full Bench took notice of the fact that attempts were made over a period of time by certain   persons   belonging   to   non­tribal   communities to   claim   tribe   status   on   the   assertion   that   their community   being   synonymous   with   a   tribe   or   group which is specified in the notification or the list. The   Full   Bench   again   took   the   survey   of   all   the (20) wp9627­7796­11 authorities on the issue. The problems of fraudulent claims  were also adverted to and  it was ultimately held that in the course of verifying the correctness of a caste certificate, the Scrutiny Committee is not precluded from inquiring into whether the applicant has indeed  established his membership of a notified tribe   and   for   this   purpose   the   enquiry   is   not confined merely to consideration of the documentary evidence, relied by the claimants. VII) State of Maharashtra & others v.Ravi  Prakash Babulasing   Parmar   &   another,   2006   AIR   SCW 6093 This case had arisen out of a direction by a Division Bench of this Court to the Tribe Scrutiny Committee for   according   greater   credence   to   the   documentary evidence   as   against   the   oral   evidence. The   Supreme Court held that the Scrutiny Committee is a quasi­ judicial body and it was constituted to prevent fraud on   Constitution   and   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not precluded   from   inquiring   into   whether   the   claimant has,   in   fact,   established   his   membership   of   a notified tribe. (21) wp9627­7796­11 22. In "Shilpa Vishnu Thakur"  (supra), the survey of judgements delivered by various Division Benchs of this Court was also taken by the Full Bench and it was ultimately concluded that the information given during   the   course   of   personal   hearing   from   the candidate regarding the traditional occupation of his family, deities worshiped, surnames in the community, the place of residence, diet and the attire of the women, is also required to be considered. 23. The   Full   Bench   in   its   conclusion   at paragraph   40   has   approved   the   requirements   as prescribed   by   Rule   3   of   the   Maharashtra   Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate   Rules,   2003,   which   inter­alia   provides for disclosure of the information by the claimant of the place from which he originally hailed. 24. Specifically sofar as the present issue is concerned,   the   Full   Bench   adverted   to   series   of decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, and quoted   the   observations   made   in   "Shri   Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra", 2007 (4) (22) wp9627­7796­11 AIR Bom R 103, supplemented by comments, as under : "This court has judicially recognised, that the word or surname "Thakur" is shared by both forward and backward communities. The burden of proving that the person belongs to a   S.T./S.C./O.B.C.   lies   heavily   on   the person seeking the certificate. The role of the   Vigilance   Committee   is   to   conduct   an enquiry to ascertain and verify the material produced   by   the   candidate   including   as   to traits and characteristics claimed. If the material   and   information   on   traits, characteristics, customs, deities and other information   did   not   relate   to   Thakur   S.T. further   verification   of   that   material normally would be uncalled for. The law as declared   in   Madhuri   Patil   (supra)   would require   verification   of   the   information given. If   that   information   was   associated with the Thakur S.T. then to rule out that the information given was based on bookish knowledge, the vigilance enquiry is required to   be   conducted   to   establish   that   the evidence   produced   is   genuine. Once   the committee with whom are associated experts, conversant   with   the   anthropological   and ethnological traits and other characteristics of the community, rule out the   association   of   the   Petitioner   to   that community, the burden is on the Petitioner to establish otherwise. That burden has not been discharged. From   the   affidavit   in   reply   filed   by   the Research Officer, the Court noted that the petitioner hailed from Khamgaon in Buldhana District. Before the area restrictions were removed in 1976, the Thakur Scheduled Tribe was   restricted   only   to   five   Districts, namely   (a)   Ahmednagar   District   in   Akola, Rahuri and Sangamner Taluka, (b) in Kolaba District   (now   Raigad),   Karjat,   Khalapur, Pen,   Panvel   and   Sudhagad   Talukas   and Matheran   (c)   In   Nashik   District   Igatpuri, Nashik   and   Sinnar   Talukas   (d)   In   Thane District   Thane,   Kalyan,   Murbad,   Bhiwandi, (23) wp9627­7796­11 Vasai, Wada, Shahapur, Palghar, Jawhar and Mokhada talukas. It was not the case of the petitioner that his family had migrated to Khamgaon   from   any   of   these   areas. The population of the Thakur Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra increased from 1,78,805 in the year   1971   to   3,23,191   in   the   year   1981. Dealing   with   this,   the   Division   Bench observed as follows: "This cannot be explained as a normal reproduction   process   leading   to   the increase   in   the   population   of   S.T. within 10 years. Scheduled Tribes by their very nature stay close to their original   habitat   unless   they   have migrated for work or education which very few still do. This sudden spurt, can   reasonably   be   explained,   that persons who did not belong to Thakur S.T. because they also bore a surname Thakur made false claims as belonging to   Thakur   S.T.   though   they   did   not belong to Thakur S.T." The   Court   observed   that   the   Scrutiny Committee   was   justified   in   applying   the affinity test. The petition was accordingly dismissed." 25. Ultimately, the Full Bench observed in paragraph 35 as under :­ "We have adverted to the Judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in order to emphasise   that   the   line   of   reasoning   that has   been   followed   is   that   before   an applicant can be validly regarded as being eligible to receive the benefits attached to being   a   member   of   a   Scheduled   Tribe,   the burden   lies   on   the   applicant   to   establish membership   of   the   tribe. An   inquiry   into whether the applicant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe is not precluded by the Presidential (24) wp9627­7796­11 Order   or   by   the   Judgments   of   the   Supreme Court   in   Palghat   Jilla   Thandan   and   Milind Katware. For the purposes of determining as to   whether   an   applicant   belongs   to   a Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee has to   be   satisfied   on   the   basis   of   all   the available material on the record that such is the position. The material on the record would include documentary evidence and oral evidence and comprehend the application of the affinity test." 26. It can thus be found that while the enquiry to be   made   by   the   Scheduled   Tribe   Scrutiny   Committee   is having a wider scope, the specific question as to whether the place of residence of the claimant or his ancestor can be the subject of the enquiry, is dealt with in the case of   "Shri   Murlidhar   Ramkrishna   Gathe"  (supra)   and approved by the Full Bench. 27. The Supreme Court in "Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya   Samrakshana   Samithi"   and   other   cases, referred   above,   declared   that   the   courts   have   no power to add, delete, or read anything more in the lists. The issue before us is radically different i.e. whether a Tribe Scrutiny Committee is competent to   inquire,   inter­alia,   into   original   place   of residence of a particular person who claims to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe. This inquiry is not (25) wp9627­7796­11 prohibited, as is clear from the Full Bench decision of this Court in "Shilpa Vishnu Thakur" (supra) . 28. Mr. P.S.   Patil,   learned   counsel   appearing for   the   Respondent   ­   Scrutiny   Committee,   further relied on a decision in "Deepika Subhash More v. the State of Maharashtra and others"  (Writ Petition No. 1953/2007, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd March, 2007), "Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. the State   of   Maharashtra   and   others"   (a   group   of   writ petitions   bearing   Writ   Petition   No.   7813/2009   and others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 14th   December,   2009),   as   well   in   "Chetan   Yuvaraj Thakur vs. the State of Maharashtra and others" (Writ Petition No. 2791/2011, decided on 21st April, 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (M.T. Joshi, J.) was a party. 29. In the case of "Deepika Subhash More v. the State   of   Maharashtra   and   others"   (supra),   the petitioner therein claimed to be belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The ordinary place of residence of the petitioner's family was Upkhed, Taluka Chalisgaon (26) wp9627­7796­11 in Jalgaon district. The Division Bench noted that the said place   was not a scheduled area for Thakur tribe as provided earlier from 1956 till 1976. The Court, therefore, observed that it was incomprehensible that only one family of the Thakurs is   residing   at   Upkhed   since   the   time   immemorial. Therefore,   the   Division   Bench   opined   that   the   said circumstance   is   rightly   held   to   be   against   the petitioner by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee. 30. In paragraph no.5 of the said Judgement, the Division   Bench   has   observed   that   removal   of   area restriction by the Act of 1976 meant that the persons coming from Thakur community would have to establish that they or their predecessors have migrated from a scheduled   area   after   the   removal   of   the   area restrictions. In review application, these specific observations were, however, deleted. 31. In the case of "Dattu Namdeo Thakur vs. the State   of   Maharashtra   and   others"   (supra),   the petitioners   therein   were   ordinary   residents   of various villages in Jalgaon district. The Division (27) wp9627­7796­11 Bench of this court relying in "Shilpa Vishnu Thakur" (supra),   has   declared   that   the   consequence   flowing from such removal of area restriction by itself would not allow a person to stake a claim to be belonging to   Thakur,   Scheduled   Tribe,   unless   such   person establishes that his forefathers have migrated from hilly   area/tribal   area   or   that   they   form   group   of tribals   in   the   particular   area. This   decision, however, is admittedly a subject matter in a  Special Leave   Petition   pending   before   the   Supreme   Court   of India, for consideration. 32. In   the   case   of   "Chetan   Yuvaraj   Thakur   vs. the State of Maharashtra and others" (supra), finding that   the   petitioner   therein   failed   in   one   of   the tests i.e. he or his ancestors hailed from the hilly area,   the   ultimate   finding   of   the   Tribe   Scrutiny Committee,   dismissing   the   claim   of   the   petitioner, was held  valid. This  judgement  was also subject of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that the order of the Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition 14193/2011 would show that the (28) wp9627­7796­11 said findings regarding migration from a particular hilly   area   was   not   assailed   in   the   Special   Leave Petition. 33. The petitioners, on the other hand, relied on  another judgement of the Division  Bench  of this Court in the case of  "Prakash s/o Rambhau Thakur v. The State of  Maharashtra   and   another  (Writ   Petition No.  2016/2007, decided on 10th September, 2009), to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party. In that   case,   though   the   Tribe   Scrutiny   Committee   had already   validated   the   tribe   certificate   of   blood relations   of   the   petitioner,   namely,   Angadh   ­ petitioner's   real   brother,   Arun   ­   petitioner's   son and   petitioner's   two   daughters   ­   Bhagyashali   and Swapna, applying the affinity test and conducting the home enquiry, the claim of the petitioner ­ Prakash was   invalidated   lateron. The   writ   petition   was, however,   allowed   basically   on   the   ground   that   the petitioner cannot be failed in the affinity test once his   blood   relations   including   his   son   and   real brother are already held  to be belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. (29) wp9627­7796­11 34. In the case of "Vaibhav s/o Subhash Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.  5940/2008,   decided   on   9th   October,   2009   by   a Division   Bench   of   this   Court,   to   which   one   of   us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party), one of the issues was that the ordinary residence of the petitioner was not from   hilly   area. Finding   that   the   petitioner's sister's   tribe   claim   was   already   validated   by   the Scrutiny Committee, his petition was also allowed. 35. Similarly,   in   "Vijay   s/o   Dayaram   Sonawane vs.   The   State   of   Maharashtra   and   others  (Writ Petition   No.   2135/2007,  decided   on   9th   September, 2009, by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party), as the identical issues were there i.e. validation of the claim of the petitioner's brother and daughters, the petitioner's claim was also upheld by the Division Bench. 36. Besides   the   fact   of   validations   of   the claims   of   the   kith   and   kin   of   the   petitioners,   as detailed supra, it was also found that the Committee (30) wp9627­7796­11 had also taken into consideration the report of the Vigilance   Cell   and   had   applied   the   affinity   test while validating the tribe certificate of those blood relations. Therefore,   reliance   placed   on   the   said judgments   by   the   petitioners   is   misplaced,   as   the issue   involved   in   the   present   cases   did   not   arise therein. 37. We need not dilate over the issue as, in our view,   upon   removal   of   the   area   restriction   by   the amending   Act   of   1976,   the   persons   belonging   to   a particular   Scheduled   Tribe,   though   residing   in different   areas   than   earlier   specified   or   migrated from the said area, can also claim to be belonging to the same Scheduled Tribe. In our view, however, the respondent   ­   Tribe   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not prohibited from applying the test of original place of residence as one of the factors to be considered in arriving at a decision of validation of the claim of the claimant in view of the clear pronouncement of law in Full Bench decision of this Court in "Shilpa Vishnu   Thakur   Vs. State   of   Maharashtra   and   others, quoted supra. (31) wp9627­7796­11 38. Though galaxy of the lawyers, appearing in the present proceeding, enlightened us on the aspect of history of the subject, reports of the Commissions together with the Minutes of the Discussion held in the Parliament at various points of time, as we have clear   declaration   of   law   on   the   issue   before   us, there   is   no   necessity   to   find   material   from   these external aids. 39. In   view   of   above   discussion,   now   it   is necessary to consider the respective cases before us. WRIT PETITION NO. 7796 OF 2011 : The Scrutiny Committee had taken into consideration the   Vigilance   Enquiry   Report,   the   oral   as   well   as documentary   evidence   placed   before   it   by   the petitioner. It was also found that the petitioner and   his   forefathers   are   residents   of   Amalner, District   Jalgaon   i.e.   the   area   far   away   from   the Tahsil   places   from   which   originally   the   members   of Thakur Scheduled Tribe hailed. Further, none of the blood relations had at any point of time been granted (32) wp9627­7796­11 any validation certificate. In view of these facts, the   reasoning   recorded   by   the   Tribe   Scrutiny Committee, which is a quasi­judicial forum, cannot be termed   as   unreasonable. The   petition,   therefore, fails. 40. WRIT PETITION NO. 9627 OF 2011 : The   petitioner   and   his   ancestors   in   the present   case   also   hail   from   Bhusaval,   District Jalgaon. The   Scrutiny   Committee   after   applying   the affinity test and also taking into consideration the Vigilance Cell Report, invalidated the claim of the petitioner. The   petitioner   had   relied   on   the validity   certificate   of   Kalpana   d/o   Ramdas   Thakur. The photocopy of the affidavit of said Kalpana filed on record shows that she is a distant relative of the petitioner ­ Dinesh. The findings of the respondent Committee would show that the certificate of validity was issued to said Kalpana by another Tribe Scrutiny Committee i.e. the Committee at Nasik, merely on the basis of ratio in the judgement in Writ Petition No. 2746 of 1998 and two other writ petitions, decided by the   Aurangabad   Bench   of   this   High   Court. In   that (33) wp9627­7796­11 view   of   the   matter,   the   reasoning   recorded   by   the Tribe Scrutiny Committee in the present case is based on  relevant material before it  and those cannot be disturbed. In the circumstances, this petition also deserves to be dismissed. 41. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed,   without   any   order   as   to   costs. Rule stands discharged. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] NPJ/wp9627­7796­11