High Court
Facts
1 WP / 1527 / 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1527 OF 20251] Akshay S/o Ashok Savadh Age : 27 years, Occu : Education2] Yogesh S/o Satyanarayan Savadh Age : 29 years, Occu : Education3] Aakansha D/o Ashok Savadh Age : 24 years, Occu : Education4] Mangesh S/o Satyanarayan Savadh Age : 26 years, Occu : Education All R/o. Dorgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed .. Petitioners Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 Through its Secretary2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Divisiion, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Through its Member Secretary .. Respondents...Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. Vivekanand U. Jadhav AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. P.J. Bharad... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.DATE : 28 FEBRUARY 2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :The petitioners are blood relatives inter se and are takingobjection to the judgment and order of respondent no. 2 - scheduledtribe certificate scrutiny committee (committee), in a proceeding under 2 WP / 1527 / 2025section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 dated 17.01.2025,refusing to validate their ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificates.2.Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. AGP waives service.At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stageof admission. 3.The learned advocate for the petitioners vehementlysubmits that irrespective of the observations of the committee,admittedly, there are enormous validities in the family and the petitionersare entitled to derive benefit of those validities. Even if the stand of thecommittee about some validity holders having practised fraud andseeking to undertake re-enquiry into those validities, till the time thecommittee is successful in recalling the validities, the petitioners cannotbe denied the benefit of those validities. 4.He would submit that the earlier validity holders includingAshwini Satyanarayan Savadh, who is the real sister of petitioner -Yogesh and Mangesh and that of Ashok Manikrao Savadh, who is fatherof the petitioner - Akshay and Aakansha, were issued with thecertificates of validity by following due process of law and following thedecision in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCCOnline SC 326, the petitioners are entitled to bank upon those validities.
Legal Reasoning
3 WP / 1527 / 20255.Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit thatrecently this Court has held one Ujwala Dnyaneshwar Savadh andSantosh Dnyaneshwar Savadh who are third degree cousins of thesepetitioners, to be entitled to have certificates of validity. Besides, thereare several other validities in the blood relationship through the branchof Maroti who is the real brother of great grandfather of these petitionersas also petitioners great grandfather by name Sonaji Dagadu and greatgrandfather of Ujwala and Santosh by name Ganpat Dagdu Savadh.6.Learned advocate would submit that contrary to the triteprinciples, the committee has resorted to and has applied affinity testillegally. The impugned judgment and order is perverse and arbitraryand be quashed and set aside and reversed.7.Learned AGP submits that there is manipulation in thegenealogy. Branch of Ganpat stated to be the great grandfather ofUjjwala and Santosh, has been added subsequently. There areenormous contrary entries in the school record and rampantmanipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment and no fault canbe found with the committee in refusing to extend benefit of thesevalidities in the family who have been able to procure the validities bysuppressing contrary school record wherein the family members weredescribed as ‘Koli’ which is not a scheduled tribe. Even the 4 WP / 1527 / 2025manipulations could be revealed only recently during the vigilanceenquiry in the petitioners’ matters. There are no favourable entries andthe petition be dismissed.8.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.9.Bearing in mind the parameters laid down by the SupremeCourt in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs.State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, thepetitioners are entitled to rely upon validity of Ashok Manikrao Savadhfather of petitioners - Akshay and Aakansha and paternal uncle of theother two petitioners who was issued with a certificate of validitypursuant to the vigilance enquiry and by a reasoned order dated01.10.2009 (Exhibit - F). The committee has sought to take exceptionto this order on the ground that one Law Officer of the committee byname Mr. B.V. Shirurkar acted as a member secretary contrary to thecomposition contemplated under relevant rules of 2003 framed underthe Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. However, it has convenientlyoverlooked the fact that according to rule 9 of those rules, the decisionof the scrutiny committee constituted under Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of2001, has to be by majority. When the decision in the matter of Ashokwas rendered by a committee comprising of three members, even ifMr. Shirurkar could not have, but had acted as a member of the 5 WP / 1527 / 2025committee, that would not go to the root of the decision / order of thescrutiny committee passed in the matter of Ashok. Therefore, theobservation of the committee to take exception to this validity on theground of composition of the committee, is not legally sustainable. 10.Even if now some doubt is being entertained by the learnedAGP based on absence of any branch of Ganpat, the validity possessedby Dnyaneshwar Tukaram Savadh, who is none other than the afore-mentioned Ujwala and Santosh’s father. A copy of the order in thematter of Dnyaneshwar dated 18.12.2010 placed on the record (page126 of the paperbook) reveals that Dnyaneshwar had relied uponvalidity of Ashok Manikrao Savadh, father of petitioner - Akshay andAakansha.11.Interestingly, Dnyaneshwar had relied upon validity of oneSuresh Sarjerao Savadh whereas Ashok had relied upon validity of oneVijay Sarjerao Savadh and Vijay and Suresh happen to be the realbrothers. In order to appreciate this state-of-affair, we reproduce thegenealogy relied upon by the petitioners and reproduced by thecommittee in the impugned judgment and order: 6 WP / 1527 / 202512.In view of such state-of-affairs, when there are these manyvalidities in the family, couple of which have been issued by the order ofthis Court, in the matter of Ujwala Dnyaneshwar Savadh and SantoshDnyaneshwar Savadh, the petitioners are entitled to have certificates ofvalidity.13.Even if the committee has now castigated Ashok ManikraoSavadh and Ashwini Satyanarayan Savadh of having resorted tomanipulation, that would not be sufficient to refuse the validity till thetime, the committee is able to successfully recall those validities.14.Incidentally, the committee has refused to even consider thevalidities of Vijay Sarjerao Savadh, Ujwala Dnyaneshwar Savadh andSantosh Dnyaneshwar Savadh on the ground that the petitioners hadDagaduMarotiGanpatSonajiDadaraoShankarSakharamKisanraoAnkushraoSahebraoSarjeraoDinkarKalyan(Val. Holder)Daivshala(Val. Holder)Varsha(Val. Holder)Jitendra(Val. Holder)Vijay(Val. Holder)Suresh(Val. Holder)Nandabai(Val. Holder)Mahesh(Val. Holder)TukaramDyaneshwarUjwala(Val. Holder)Santosh(Val. Holder)ManikraoSatyanarayanAshok(Val. Holder) AkshayAakanshaAshwini(Val. Holder)YogeshMangesh
Decision
7 WP / 1527 / 2025not submitted their affidavits as is required by rule 11 of the Rules of2003, in our considered view, the rule can only be treated as a directoryone and not mandatory one. When a fact is to be proved on the basis ofpreponderance of probability, there cannot be any regulation as to how itcould be proved. Conversely, there cannot be a rule mandating that afact has to be proved only in a particular manner, more so, when it is acase of social status to be established by variety of evidence. Be thatas it may. In view of enormous validities in the family, which are in forceand apparently issued by following due process of law, the petitionersare entitled to have certificates of validity. The impugned judgment isnot sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 15.The writ petition is allowed partly.16. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.17.The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribevalidity certificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding anything. Thevalidities shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which thecommittee has decided to re-open. 8 WP / 1527 / 202518.The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.19.Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/