1 crwp161.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.161/2025 Ramesh Bhagwantrao Talewar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr.R.B.Talewar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.J.Gohokar, APP for respondents. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 17, 2025. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to “Chattri” Scheduled Tribe. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 24th April, 1985 and has further sought direction to register an offence under the relevant provisions of law against the Committee members who had framed the guidelines, which are enclosed to the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 24th April, 1985. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to take cognizance of the representation dated 26th October, 2024. 4. The representation dated 26.10.2024, is addressed by the petitioner to the Chief Secretary of the State Government claiming that vide notification dated 01.10.1979, ‘Chhatri’ is notified as Scheduled Tribe in the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. Subsequent thereto, on 24.04.1985, a Government Resolution came to be issued thereby disclosing certain guidelines to the competent Officers who are dealing 2025:BHC-NAG:2881-DB 2 crwp161.2025.odt with the claim of adjudication and issuance of the validity certificates. According to the petitioner, it is mentioned in the annexures attached to the said Government Resolution with regard to Entry No.17, which is about the ‘Chhatri’ caste that there does not exist a ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe. It is claimed that the aforesaid guidelines are contrary to the mandate of Article 342 of the Constitution of India so also the notification notifying the ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe way back on 01.10.1979. He has also claimed that unless the aforesaid entry in the remarks column about non-existence of ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe is not removed, same would continue to cause injustice to the real and genuine persons like the petitioner who belong to the ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, he has sought not only the prosecution of the Committee Members, but also such persons who are responsible for taking such policy decisions. 5. If we consider the aforesaid submissions in the background of the Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985, it is worth to mention here that vide said Government Resolution, guidelines are issued to the competent Officers for facilitating the issuance of the tribe certificates or the validity certificates to the scheduled tribe category candidates. These guidelines are framed by the experts and at Serial Number 17 of the guidelines, a reference is made to the ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe which is reflected at Serial Number 22 in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. At Serial Number 22, the entries of Kawar and Chatri are provided and in vertical column no.3, the traits, traditions and customs 3 crwp161.2025.odt of the said tribes are provided. Whereas, in Column 4, pseudo names of the tribes in the nature of synonymy of tribe are provided. Columns 5 and 6 provide for the differences to be considered qua the genuine ‘Chhatri’ Scheduled Tribe entries with that of pseudo Chhatri tribe, who are not scheduled tribe including their occupation are provided. Column 7 which is in the form of ‘remarks’ speaks of the ‘Chhatri’ being not a scheduled tribe. 6. The fact remains that as per the Gazette of India notification dated Sep 20, 1976, Second Schedule, Chapter-I, Part IX-Maharashtra at Serial Number 22, following tribes are certified to be the scheduled tribes:- “22. Kawar, Kanwar, Kaur, Cherwa, Rathia, Tanwar, Chattri.” 7. In this background, if we appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, we are required to be sensitive to the fact that consistently since 1976 onwards, ‘Chattri’ at Serial Number 22 in the Scheduled Tribes Order for State of Maharashtra is notified and identified as a scheduled tribe. As far as the Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985 is concerned, same provides for the guidelines to the Officers who are empowered to issue the caste certificates and such guidelines have no statutory force but only a guiding force. Apart from above, tribe Chattri referred to therein in the remarks column has to be read in the light of the earlier references in the remarks column viz. pseudo tribes from 4 crwp161.2025.odt ‘Meru Chattri’ so also ‘Chadri’ are trying to take undue advantage of getting certificates issued of scheduled tribes. 8. In this background, the contention of the petitioner that ‘Chhatri’ is said to be not scheduled tribe in the aforesaid Government Resolution or annexures to the said Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985 will not debar the genuine ‘Chhatri’ from establishing the claim based on documents, social traits and traditions followed by them. Day in and day out, we are dealing with the cases wherein either claim for issuance of a validity certificate of belonging to the ‘Chhatri’ scheduled tribe is granted by the Committee or by the Authority which is authorized to grant such certificates. It cannot be said that there is a blanket obligation on the authorities which are granting validity certificates to form a basis of ‘Chhatri’ being not a scheduled tribe. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations, the claim put forth by the petitioner is completely misplaced and without any basis. That being so, in our opinion, the writ petition lacks merit and as such, stands dismissed. (MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.) Mukund Ambulkar