RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE
Legal Reasoning
*4* 909wp1507a1511o244.We have perused the genealogy, which can be tracedup to Punjaram Thakar. His son is shown as Banderao PunjaramThakar. Banderao had two sons, namely, Fakira and Dada. Boththe Petitioners before us, namely, Kalpana and Shobha, aresiblings and they are biological daughters of Fakira. Theirbiological brother Dagdu, is the father of Anurag Dagdu Thakar.5.The original record is perused by the learned AGP,who submits that the earliest person in the genealogy is known asPunjaram Thakar. These Petitioners, their father, uncles and auntsare using the surname ‘Pawar’.6.Anurag Dagdu Pawar was before the co-ordinateBench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8907/2019 wherein, oneor two entries indicated his caste as ‘Thakur Maratha’. The co-ordinate Bench considered the grievance of Anurag, whose claimwas invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and by the judgmentdated 02.08.2019, delivered in Writ Petition No.8907/2019,Anurag was granted the validity certificate under the orders ofthis Court. However, a condition was imposed that if any of the *5* 909wp1507a1511o24other validity holders, on whose validity Anurag has placedreliance, faced re-reopened cases and the validity certificate iscancelled, Anurag will not be entitled for any equity and hewould suffer the same consequences.7.In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5611/2018, decidedon 27.07.2018 at the Principal Seat, this Court has concluded inparagraphs 2, 3, 4 and 8 as under :-“2. On the earlier occasion, we found that though thepetitioner produced credible evidence in the formof certificates of validity issued to her real uncleGovind Sambhaji Isankar and which concededlyhas been issued way back on 5th December 2005and another certificate of validity dated 5thSeptember 2006 to his cousin uncle RamdasSambhaji Isankar, the Committee finds that thecertificate of validity issued to the real uncleGovind, is not free from suspicion. It is held bythe Committee in the impugned order that a noticeto show cause has been issued to said Govind on14th September 2017, calling upon him to showcause as to why this certificate of validity shouldnot be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated by fraudor suppression of material facts by the saidGovind. 3.On such a finding being rendered by theCommittee, we called upon the learned AGP on theearlier two occasions to produce the record. Wealso indicated to the learned AGP as to how thecertificate of validity is denied to the petitionerthough she has established her relationship withthe said Govind and only on the ground that ashow cause notice has been issued, but no
Arguments
*1* 909wp1507a1511o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD909 WRIT PETITION NO. 1507 OF 2024KALPANA FAKIRA PAWAR,Age : 55 years, Occu. : Service (Assistant Teacher),R/o At.Post. Mali Ghogargaon,Tq.Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,At present : Zilla Parishad Primary School,Kukana, Tq.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar....PETITIONERVERSUS1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.Deputy Director (Research) andMember Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Near Saint Lawrence School, CIDCO, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3. The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Dist. Ahmednagar.4. The Education Officer (Primary),Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.Dist. Ahmednagar....RESPONDENTS…Shri C.R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.Ms.Kavita Bhale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. *2* 909wp1507a1511o24...WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1511 OF 2024SHOBHA FAKIRA PAWAR,Age: 58 years, Occu.: Service (Assistant Teacher),R/o. At. Post. Mali Ghogargaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.At Present: New Vidya Nagar, Gut. No. 91, Plot No. 24/B, Beed Bypass, Satara Parisar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar....PETITIONERVERSUS1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,Town Hall, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.3.Deputy Director (Research) andMember Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Near Saint Lawrence School, CIDCO, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.4. The Education Officer,Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar....RESPONDENTS... *3* 909wp1507a1511o24WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3626 OF 2024 IN WP/1511/2024SHOBHA FAKIRA PAWARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS…Shri C.R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri R.S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3/State.Shri Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 20th August, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ) :- 1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the parties.2.Both the Petitioners claim to be belonging to‘Thakar’, Scheduled Tribe category. Their claim has beenrejected by the Scrutiny Committee, by it’s common judgmentdated 31.01.2024.3.Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sidesand perused the petition paper books with their assistance.
Decision
*6* 909wp1507a1511o24proceedings in furtherance thereof came to beinitiated till date. The learned AGP sought time tofile an affidavit. Now, the Joint Commissioner,Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabadhas filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken onrecord. The said affidavit admits that thecertificate of validity has been issued to her realuncle and cousin uncle of the petitioner. Theaffidavit admits that the petitioner relies heavily onthese two documents, but clarifies that there is asuppression detected from the original record ofthe certificate holder and that is how a show causenotice has been issued to Govind. The show causenotice could not be taken to its logical end onaccount of the huge pendency of casesbefore this Committee. In all, 7,000 matters werepending on the date when this Joint Commissionertook charge and he has reduced the pendency by2500 cases being decided. In thecircumstances, he says that appropriate orders anddirections be issued by this Court.4.We are not impressed by this explanation and thejustification not to proceed against aperson who has perpetrated a fraud on thepublic. If it is a serious allegation and which istermed as fraud, then, it should have been taken toits logical end. Mere issuance of a show causenotice in the present case would not suffice forthere are two certificates of validity relied upon.The only reason assigned in the impugned order todiscard them, cannot be sustained. Thejustification in the above affidavit is also notenough to straightaway discard the certificates ofvalidity issued in the family. It is conceded thatother reasons assigned in the impugned ordercannot be supported in law.”“8.This order does not prevent the Committee fromproceeding against Govind in accordance with lawand needless to further clarify that in the eventGovind's claim is invalidated, all the consequencesshall be taken by the petitioner as well.”8.In view of the above, if the present Petitioners are to *7* 909wp1507a1511o24be granted conditional validity certificates, they would be placedat par with Anurag and if Anurag or Mangal suffer reopening oftheir cases and an adverse order cancelling their validitycertificates is passed, the present Petitioners would also suffer thesame consequences.9.In view of the above, both these Writ Petitions arepartly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31.01.2024, shallstand quashed and set aside. The present Petitioners would begranted the validity certificates of ‘Thakar’, Scheduled Tribe,within 30 (thirty) days from today. As concluded above, thiswould be a conditional order and if the Petitioners face reopeningof their cases, they would suffer the same fate as may be sufferedby Anurag or Mangal, if such claims are invalidated.10.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.11.The pending Civil Application does not surviveand stands disposed off. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)