High Court · 2025
Facts
78.WP-5048-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWrit Petition No. 5048 Of 2024Sachin s/o Dnyanoba AdatraoAge : 29 years, Occupation-Labour,R/o. Karajkheda, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Chief Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad Region,Aurangabad. 3.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. .. RespondentsANDWrit Petition No. 15006 Of 2023Vinod s/o Sheshrao AdatraoAge : 30 years, Occupation-Service,R/o. Karajkheda, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Chief Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Scheduled Tribes Certificates ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad. 3.The Maharashtra Industrial DevelopmentCorporation, Udyogi Sarthi, Mhakali Gufa[1]
Legal Reasoning
78.WP-5048-2024.odtthat in the case of earlier caste claims, the vigilance inquiry wasconducted. It’s not that on unverified entry of Venkat is thesolitary basis for issuing validities. We find that the validitiespressed into service are issued after following due procedure oflaw and would corroborate the petitioners’ claims. 9.The strong objection raised by the learned AGP to theorders of the Scrutiny Committee passed in favour of fourpaternal side relatives of the petitioners granting them validity,can be dealt with by referring to view taken by coordinate benchin a common judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 in thematter of Pranav s/o Ramrao Mantre Vs. State of Maharashtraand Ors., in Writ Petition No.12622/2021. It is impermissible forlearned AGP to raise such objection and for that purpose, we relyon following observations :“7.As regards the observation of the Committee regarding composition ofthe then Committee which granted validities to Laxman Mantre and DhanrajRavikant, in our considered view, a successor committee cannot question suchcomposition more so when according to Rule 9(3) of the Maharashtra ScheduledCastes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, OtherBackward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance andVerification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2003, the decision of the committee whichcomprises of three members can be by majority. In this view of the matter whenthere was no dispute about the eligibility of the other two members this groundwill not be sustainable.8.There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners’ father RamraoMantre, has been granted validity by the Committee by following due process oflaw. The Committee has now sought to take exception to that order by observingthat the conduct of the then Committee members was dubious. It was headed byone V.S. Patil. We need not deliberate on this. So long as the certificates ofvalidity issued by following necessary procedure in accordance with law are notconfiscated and cancelled in accordance with law as is prescribed under section7(1) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, the committee could not haverefused to extend the benefit of the validities in the family by questioning thefunctioning of the then scrutiny committee.[6] 78.WP-5048-2024.odt9.In the circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be extended the benefitsof having conditional validities.”10.Though late Mr. V.S. Patil was the member of theCommittee which issued the validities, by that itself would not bea ground to reject the tribe claim. The cyclostyle orders arepassed. No independent reasons are assigned by the Committeein granting the validities on earlier occasion. But this is notsufficient to conclude at this juncture to infer fraud. If theCommittee is of the opinion that this would amount to fraud thenit is open for it to undertake the reverification which has alreadybeen done by the Committee. When the reverification isunderway, the petitioners cannot be denied benefit of samesocial status. 11.The learned AGP relied on the judgment of PrasadLaxmanrao Paratwad (supra). He has pointed out paragraphno.12, 13, 14 to 17 and 32. In that case besides the orderspassed by the Committee of which the Mr. V.S. Patil was themember, there was interpolations in the school record.Headmaster of the concerned school did not respond to theCommittee. Those interpolations were admitted by thenpetitioners. Considering those peculiar facts, the tribe claim wasrejected. The judgment cited is distinguishable. In the case athand, there are four validities and other documentary evidenceto corroborate the claim. We therefore find that ratio cannot bemade applicable to the present case. [7] 78.WP-5048-2024.odt12.The school record of Venkant Hanmant was not verified onearlier occasion. We have gone through the report of Headmasterwhich shows that a new entry is inserted in the school register.We have gone through the photocopy which is in urdu script. Theschool entry of 25.06.1951 is doubtful. The Committee hasalready proposed reverification to find out as to the fraud existedor not. It is not possible at this juncture to hold that there is afraud. 13.The orders of invalidation in case of Waman, Mahadev andSomnath were suppressed. After going through the genealogy, itcannot be said that those persons are close relatives of thepetitioners, though they are paternal side relatives. Thesuppression of order of invalidation would not be an impedimentin granting validity. The petitioners have rightly referred to thejudgment of Bankam Balaji Maldode (supra). We preferred to relyon paragraph nos. 5 and 6 which are as follows :“5.It does appear that the fact of invalidation of Madhukar Maldode andMahesh were not brought to the notice of the Committees when the subsequentvalidities were issued. However in our considered view, this cannot be regarded assuppression of a material fact. The decision regarding invalidation would operatein personam, qua that particular individual. Since the petitioner or the subsequentvalidity holders were not the parties to that proceeding, even that decision wouldnot be binding on them.”“6.It is a matter to be borne in mind that by virtue of Section 8 of theMaharashtra Act No.23 of 2001, the burden is on the claimant to establish hisclaim by leading cogent and convincing evidence. If he fails to do that obviouslyhe is bound to lose the tribe certificate or caste certificate. That will not precludeother blood relations from putting up a claim and making an attempt to establishand discharge the burden. Hypothetically in griven a case, if one blood relationsecures invalidity but other blood relative may succeed by leading cogent andconvincing evidence in getting the validity certificate. Consequently, merelybecause there was an invalidity of Madhukar Maldode and Maheshkumkar Maldodewhich were allegedly not disclosed to the subsequent Committees which issued[8] 78.WP-5048-2024.odtvalidity certificate to the other blood relatives it cannot be said and treated as anadverse one. Precisely for this reason, the observation and conclusion of theCommittee that non-disclosure of the invalidities would go to the root of thesubsequent validity certificate is clearly perverse and arbitrary conclusion.”14.The learned AGP has also strenuously submitted that thereis incompatible and tempering of the school record of thepaternal side blood relatives. Their relationship with thepetitioners has not been disputed. When the validities pressedinto service by the petitioners are still intact and unless those arerevoked, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of samesocial status. Incompatible school record or the bogus entry ofVenkant Hanumant and the cyclostyle orders passed by theCommittee of which Mr. V.S. Patil was member can be taken intoaccount during the reverification. The petitioners are ready toface consequences as per Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State ofMaharashtra. They deserve conditional validity. We find thatimpugned judgment and order is unsustainable. We, therefore,pass following order :ORDER(i)The Writ Petitions are allowed partly.(ii)The common judgment and order dated 02.12.2022 passedby the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. (iii)The Respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificates of ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners forthwith. The validity certificates shall be subject to outcome of reverification proposed by the Scrutiny Committee. [9]
Arguments
78.WP-5048-2024.odtMarag, Andheri (E), Mumbai-40093,Through itsAdministrative Officer,General Administration Department.4.The Executive Engineer,Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Division Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur. .. RespondentsANDWrit Petition No. 5139 Of 2024WithCivil Application No. 1093 Of 2025Dnyanoba s/o Vyankatrao AdatraoAge : 56 years, Occupation - Service,R/o. Karajkheda, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the Chief Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad Region,Aurangabad. 3.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.4.The Vaidyakiya Officer,Zilla Parishad Yunani Hospital,At Takwiki Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondents****** Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis holding for Mr. E.S. Murge,Advocate for the Petitioners.[2] 78.WP-5048-2024.odt* Mr. P.S. Patil, Addl.GP for Respondents/State.* Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate for Respondent No.3 inWP-15006/2023.* Mr. R.D. Raut, Advocate for Respondent No.3 inWP-5139/2023.***** CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.. RESERVED ON : 10th MARCH 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th MARCH 2025 FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :.Heard both sides finally considering exigency in thematters.2.Petitioners are from the same family and claiming to bemembers of Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. They are challengingcommon judgment and order dated 02.12.2022 passed by theScrutiny Committee, invalidating their tribe certificates. 3.Petitioners are relying on validities of Manoj DnyanobaAdatrao; Raghunath Tatya Adatrao; Deepak Raghunath Adatraoand Dilip Raghunath Adatrao. According to them, Manoj wasissued with validity certificate by following due procedure of lawand that is reliable. It is submitted that orders of invalidation ofcouple of relatives would not affect their tribe claim. It is furthersubmitted that though incompatible school record was pittedagainst them, there is no fraud or there is no willful suppressionof material facts. [3] 78.WP-5048-2024.odt4.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Ameya Sabnis relieson the following judgments :(i)Venkat s/o. Bhujangrao Adatrao Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.5104/2022(ii)Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 268.(iii)Bharat Bhagwant Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2022(3) Mh.L.J. 782.(iv)Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar Vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and Another, 2021(5) Mh.L.J., 345.(v)Bankam s/o Balaji Maldode Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.9047/2020.5.Learned AGP supports impugned judgment and order. Hetenders on record original files of earlier validity holders and thepresent petitioners in support of his submissions. He submitsthat school entry of Venkat Hanmant of 25.06.1951 is pressedinto service by the Petitioners as well as previous validityholders. But the verification of the entry was not conducted andit is found to be manipulated. It is vehemently submitted thatadding said entry in school register is serious than manipulation.It is submitted that the validities which are pressed into servicewere issued by the Committee of which Mr. V.S. Patil was themember and notoriety of Mr. V.S. Patil was taken note of on thejudicial side. The orders of the Committee while issuing validitiesare cyclostyle orders and no independent reasons were assigned.6.Learned AGP submits that the petitioners have suppressed[4] 78.WP-5048-2024.odtorders of invalidation of paternal side blood relatives namelyWaman Dashrath Adatrao, Mahadev Dashrath Adatrao andSomnath Laxmanrao Adatrao. It is further submitted that theCommittee has rightly taken into account the incompatible andtampering of school record of paternal side relatives. The relianceis placed on the judgment of Prasad Laxmanrao Vs. State ofMaharashtra. 7.We have considered rival submissions of the parties. Wehave gone through the relevant papers from the original files.Petitioners have placed on record the genealogy in which thevalidity holders are figuring. They were issued with validitycertificates by the Committee by separate orders of which Mr.V.S. Patil was the member. It also appears from record that noverification was conducted into the school record of VenkantHanumant of 1951 which is consistently relied upon in the tribeclaims. 8.Raghunath Tatya Adatrao is the first validity holder inwhose case also the vigilance was conducted. By a reasonedorder, he was issued with validity certificate by the Committee.In the case of Manoj, vigilance was conducted. After consideringthe report and the documents and relying on validity ofRaghunath Tatya Adatrao, he was issued with validity certificate.The school record of Venkant Hanumant Adatrao of 25.06.1951was not verified. Thereafter Deepak Raghunath and DilipRaghunath were also issued with validity certificates. In theircase, the vigilance was conducted. What reveals from record is[5]
Decision
78.WP-5048-2024.odt(iv)The petitioners shall not claim equity. (v)Civil Application No.1093/2025 stands disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGEnajeeb..[10]