High Court
Facts
1282.25wp etc(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1282 OF 2025Umesh Ramkishan Gurle,Age: 29 years, Occu. Education,R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,District Parbhani ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee, Chh. Sambhajinagar,Through its Dy. Director (R),Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar ….RESPONDENTSANDWRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2025Ramkishan Baliram Gurle,Age: 70 years, Occu. Retired,R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,District Parbhani ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee, Chh. Sambhajinagar,Through its Dy. Director (R),Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar 1282.25wp etc(2) 3.The Dean,Swami Ramanand Tirth Government Medical College and Hospital,Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai,Dist. Beed ….RESPONDENTSAND WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2025Mahesh Ramkishan Gurle,Age: 32 years, Occu. Service,R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,District Parbhani ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee, Chh. Sambhajinagar,Through its Dy. Director (R),Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar3.The Divisional Controllar,Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,Buldhana Division, Buldhana,Dist. Buldhana ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute, Advocate for petitioners in all petitionsMs P. J. Bharad, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in all petitions CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th January, 2025 1282.25wp etc(3) JUDGMENT (Per : Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)1.Heard the respective sides. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties. 3.The petitioners in all these three petitions, who are fatherand two sons, have raised a challenge to the common order ofinvalidation dated 22/01/2025, passed by respondent No.2/scrutinycommittee invalidating their claims for ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribeand directing initiation of action under Sections 10 and 12 ofMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and SpecialBackward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001). Since theimpugned order is a common order the writ petitions are being decidedtogether. 4. By the impugned order, the committee has invalidated thetribe claims of these petitioners by observing that they failed toestablish their claims on the basis of documentary evidence, as well asfor failure to prove affinity with ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. The
Legal Reasoning
1282.25wp etc(5) favour of Santosh cannot be made the sole basis to validate thepetitioners’ claims, since a few documents which are mentioned in theimpugned order were not brought before the committee during theprocess of scrutiny of the claim of Santosh. It is submitted that thedocuments in favour of the other relatives of the petitioners showingthe caste as ‘Munnarwar’, ‘Kolam’, ‘Manner’, etc. were not broughtbefore the committee, and therefore, the committee has rightlydiscarded the validity in favour of Santosh. 7.In order to have objective scrutiny of the claims of thepetitioners, we have called upon the respondents to produce theoriginal file of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle from the office of scrutinycommittee. The same is produced. 8.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers including original file of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle. 9.It is to be noted that, there is no dispute about the fact thatpetitioners Umesh, Mahesh and Santosh are sons of RamkishanBaliram Gurle. The genealogy showing the relationship was filedbefore the scrutiny committee and there is no dispute. It is also notdisputed that a validity certificate dated 15/10/2007 was issued infavour of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle by the Pune scrutiny committee. 1282.25wp etc(6) 10.While considering the rival claims, the settled position oflaw as laid down in the authoritative pronouncement of the SupremeCourt in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR2023 Supreme Court 1657] has to be kept in mind. As has been held,in the wake of validity certificate in favour of a blood relative, thescope of enquiry has to be mainly whether it was granted afterfollowing due procedure and by a reasoned order. On perusal oforiginal record of the case of Santosh, it is clear that, a detailedvigilance enquiry was conducted and on the basis of report of vigilanceenquiry and other documents filed by him, the committee passed areasoned order dated 15/10/2007 validating his tribe claim. It ispertinent to note that the validity certificate dated 15/10/2007 in favourof Santosh is in force. In view of this, the petitioners, being bloodrelatives of Santosh, are entitled to take benefit of the validity.11.The contentions of the respondents that, a few documentswere not produced before the committee while deciding the claim ofSantosh, cannot be given weightage in view of the authoritativepronouncement in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti (supra). It has to be noted that the validity in 1282.25wp etc(7) favour of Santosh is in force and only because of possibility ofreopening of matter of Santosh, the petitioners cannot be deprived ofits benefit at this stage.12.It has also to be noted that, in view of validity in favour ofone brother, invalidating claims of other brothers and father, will createan anomalous situation. In view of the position of law as settled in thematters of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste CertificateScrutiny Committee No.1 and others; [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401] andMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra),we are of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled tovalidity, which has to be co-terminus with the validity in favour ofSantosh Ramkishan Gurle. Hence, we pass following order : (i)The writ petitioners are partly allowed. The impugnedorder dated 22.01.2025 is quashed and set aside. Therespondent/Committee shall immediately issue tribe validitycertificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without addinganything. The validities shall be subject to the final outcome ofthe matter which the Committee has decided to re-open. 1282.25wp etc(8) (ii)The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. 13.Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk
Arguments
1282.25wp etc(4) committee has referred to various documents submitted by thepetitioners, however, it discarded the documents by referring to theissue of area restriction and observing that the family members of thepetitioners were not residents of the scheduled area. About affinity, thecommittee has generally observed that the cultural traits and customsas narrated by the petitioners did not match with the ‘Mannervarlu’tribe.5.Assailing the impugned order, Advocate Mr Vibhute,learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orderis grossly illegal since the committee has erred in ignoring the validitycertificate in favour of third son of petitioner Ramkishan, namely,Santosh Ramkishan Gurle, who is brother of petitioners Umesh andMahesh. By placing reliance upon validity certificate in favour ofSantosh, it is vehemently argued that the committee ignored thevalidity certificate by adopting a perverse approach, withoutconsidering the settled legal position. He submitted that, on the basisof validity in favour of Santosh, the claims of the petitioners ought tohave been validated. 6.Learned A.G.P. Ms Bharad for the respondents/Stateauthorities opposed the petitions and submitted that the validity in