RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 931 wp 654.24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD931 WRIT PETITION NO. 654 OF 2024SUPRIYA PRALHAD BHUTTEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS…Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Paithane h/f. Golegaonkar Madhur A.AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade...CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE :17th January, 2024P.C. :-1.The Petitioner's claim of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ ScheduledTribe has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.12.2023. ThePetitioner is in employment, working as a Clerk cum Typist with theRespondent Nos.4 and 5.2.We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates forthe respective sides and have perused the judgment delivered by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State ofMaharashtra & Ors.; AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 1657, especially paragraphnos.22, 23 and 24 which read as under:“22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is foundin many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon ( 2 ) 931 wp 654.24caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously.such a validity certificate has to be issued either by the ScrutinyCommittee constituted in terms of the directions issued in KumariMadhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC 94) or constituted under theRules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, theScrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the certificate isgenuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decidewhether the applicant has established that the person to whom thevalidity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his bloodrelative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his preciseand exact relationship with the person to whom the validitycertificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to bemade by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificatehas been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by theconcerned Scrutiny Committee after holding due enquiry andfollowing due procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee hasissued a validity certificate contemplated in terms of I the decisionin the case of Kumari Madhuri Patill, the examination will bewhether the enquiry contemplated by the said decision has beenheld. If the certificate relied upon is issued after coming into forceof the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertainwhether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed theprocedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SCRules, as the case may be. For this verification, the ScrutinyCommittee can exercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) byrequisitioning the record of the concerned Caste ScrutinyCommittee, which has issued the validity certificate to the bloodrelative of the applicant. If the record has been destroyed, theScrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has beenheld on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committeeby which caste validity has been granted to the blood relative ofthe applicant. If it is established that the validity certificate hasbeen granted without holding a proper inquiry or withoutrecording reasons, obviously, the caste scrutiny committee cannotvalidate the caste certificate only on the basis of such validitycertificate of the blood relative.23.In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may be satisfiedthat the caste validity certificate relied upon by the applicant hasbeen issued after making a lawful enquiry. But if the ScrutinyCommittee is of the view that the applicant has not clearly ( 3 ) 931 wp 654.24established that the person to whom caste validity certificateproduced on record has been granted is his blood relative, in termsof sub- rule (2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the Caste ScrutinyCommittee will have to refer the case for conducting an enquirythrough Vigilance Cell. In such a case, the Vigilance Cell can bedirected by the Scrutiny Committee to conduct an enquiry limitedto the relationship claimed by the applicant with the person inwhose favour the caste validity certificate has been issued. If, onthe basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell, the ScrutinyCommittee is satisfied that the person in whose favour castevalidity certificate has been issued is a blood relative of theapplicant and lawful enquiry has been conducted before issuingthe validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issuevalidity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy the affinitytest. For example, if it is established that the father or grandfatherof the applicant has been given a caste validity certificate afterholding a lawful enquiry in accordance with law, the CasteScrutiny Committee cannot hold that the grandfather or father ofthe applicant, as the case may be, belongs to Scheduled Tribe butthe applicant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only if therelationship as pleaded by the applicant is not established, theother evidence produced by the applicant and the result of theaffinity test can be taken into consideration by the ScrutinyCommittee.24. As provided in sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, theVigilance Cell's report is not conclusive. If on the basis of thereport of the Vigilance Cell and other evidence on record, theScrutiny Committee comes to a conclusion that the caste claim isgenuine, a caste validity certificate can be issued. Only on theground that the report of vigilance cell is in favour of theapplicant, validity certificate cannot be mechanically grantedwithout application of mind. If the report of the Vigilance Cell isagainst the applicant, his caste claim cannot be rejected only onthe basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell without providing acopy of the report to the applicant and without giving him anopportunity of being heard on the report. After giving anopportunity to the applicant to make submissions on the report, theScrutiny Committee may reject the caste claim. In a given case,the Scrutiny Committee can also record a finding that the casteclaim is genuine. It all depends on the facts of each case.” ( 4 ) 931 wp 654.243.The reason for refusing the validity certificate to the Petitioner ison account of a conclusion drawn by the committee in the impugned order thatall the validity holders from the paternal side (blood relations), have acquiredsuch validity certificates from the competent committees, which missed theaspect of interpolations. The learned AGP has strenuously contended that mostof the blood relatives have different entries in their records like Munnurwad,Mannurwar and Mannervarlu. According to the committee, all these validityholders have succeeded in convincing the committees, by suppressing theinterpolations in the records.4.We are unable to accept the submissions of the Committee, at thisstage. The Petitioner's biological uncle Rameshwar, who is the brother of thePetitioner's father Prahlad, has been granted validity certificate. ThePetitioner's father Prahlad has three brothers, namely Ananda, Manohar andRameshwar. Two daughters of Manohar, namely Mangal and Sheela have beengranted validity certificates. Two daughters and one son of Ananda, namelyShobha, Vijaymala and Datta have been granted validity certificates. ThePetitioner's grand-father is Datta Mallu and his biological brother is DigambarMallu. Digambar had four sons, namely Mallu, Maroti, Dashrath and Balaji.Sanjay, son of Maroti and Poonam and Dipali, daughters of Dashrath, havebeen granted validity certificates by the committee. ( 5 ) 931 wp 654.245.In the above backdrop, the relations between the Petitioner andthe above-stated blood relatives has not been disputed. It is the committee'sconclusion that all these nine validity certificates have been acquired bymisleading the committees. We do not find that the committee has initiatedany proceedings for reopening these cases and for scrutinizing the validitycertificates issued to these nine persons on the basis of the purportedinterpolations in various statutory documents.6.In Apporva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee No.1 and others; 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401, this Court has concludedthat when the biological father, biological siblings, biological uncle etc. aregranted validity certificates, a candidate so related to them, cannot be deprivedof a validity certificate.7.In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others(Writ Petition No.5611/2018) decided on 27.07.2018, this Court has concludedin paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 8 wherein it was held that if all the validityholders,who are the basis of the the Petitioner’s claim, are subjected toreopening of the inquiries and are subsequently declined the validitycertificates, the Petitioner can also be dealt with in the same manner.
Decision
( 6 ) 931 wp 654.248.In view of the above, considering the law laid down by this Courtin Apporva Vinay Nichale (supra), Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra) and thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti (supra), this petition is partly allowed. The impugned orderdated 05.12.2023 is quashed and set aside.9. Considering the law laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra),the Competent Committee shall issue a validity certificate to the Petitionerwithin 30 days from today and if any of the blood relatives, as cited by thePetitioner, suffer reopening of their cases and if their claims are invalidated, theconsequences suffered by such candidates, would befall upon the presentPetitioner who would also suffer similar consequences. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]mub