High Court
Legal Reasoning
933 and 934.odtbefore the Committee. 5.We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf oflearned Advocates appearing for the respective parties in respectivepetitions. We have perused the record tendered into service. We findthat as many as 32 validity certificates have been issued by theCommittee in favour of paternal relatives of the petitioners. There ishardly any dispute as regards to relationship of the petitioners withthe validity holders. It is true that this Court in case of Machindra(supra) made certain prima facie observations as regards to validitycertificates issued to some of the paternal relatives of the petitionersand expressed that inquiry be carried in the matter of administrationand implementation of the enactment by the Authorities. Pertinently,in paragraph No.29, this Court observed thus :-“29.It is clarified that beyond the prima facieexpression in the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, wehave not held that the certificate holders have broughtfraudulent and bogus claims or that the whole inquiry wasnot genuine and authoritative or that all the claims lackbona fides. All contentions in that regard of all sides arekept open.”6.At this stage, reference can be given to the judgment of thisCourt in case of Apporva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee no.1 and others (supra) reported in2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 specifically held in paragraph no.7 thus :-[4]
Arguments
933 and 934.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD933 WRIT PETITION NO. 2234 OF 2022VAIBHAV NARAYAN NAGTILAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDANOTHER...Mr. S. C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.Dr. K. B. Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.…934 WRIT PETITION NO. 2258 OF 2022ASHVINI MOHAN NAGTILAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Mr. S. C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.DATE : 19th APRIL, 2024.ORDER :- .The petitioners in both the writ petitions have approached thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning theorder dated 31.12.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 – Scheduled TribeCertificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, thereby invalidating theirtribe claim and seek declaration that the petitioners belong to ‘ThakarScheduled Tribe’.[1] 933 and 934.odt2.The petitioners in both the writ petitions contend that theybelong to ‘Thakar Scheduled Tribe’ community, which is recognized asScheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. Sub-DivisionalMagistrate, Osmanabad issued a caste certificate that petitionersbelong to ‘Thakar Scheduled Tribe’. On 28.02.2014 and 07.07.2015respectively, College forwarded both the petitioners proposal forverification of the tribe claim to respondent No.2 – Committee. It wasaccompanied by an affidavit with genealogy in Namuna Form F, theschool record of the petitioners and revenue/birth record of theirparental relatives since 1913 showing caste status as ‘Thakar’. Thecertificates of validity issued in their favour. The Committee had neverreferred the file of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2234 of 2022 tothe vigilance cell for inquiry and straightway invalidated his tribe claimby giving erroneous reasons. Further, the Committee had referred theclaim of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2258 of 2022 to vigilanceofficer, who submitted its report on 02.12.2017. Thereafter, thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.2258 of 2022 was served with the report,which has been duly replied on 24.02.2020. However, the committeeinvalidated her tribe claim by giving erroneous reasons.3.Mr. S. C. Yeramwar, learned Advocate appearing for thepetitioners in both the petitions invites attention of this Court to thereasons recorded in the impugned order. He would point out that as[2] 933 and 934.odtmany as 32 parental side relatives of the petitioners have beenconferred with validity certificate. The Committee discarded thevalidity certificate of Lahu Gajendra Nagtilak merely on the groundthat he has been conferred validity without affinity test. So far asvalidity certificates issued in favour of Nilavati Gulab Nagtilak, AshabaiGulab Nagtilak and Mira Goroba Nagtilak, the Committee observedthat out of four Members of the Committee, only three members havesigned on order, therefore, such decision of the Committee is not inconformity with Rule 10 of 2003 Rules. He would, therefore, submitthat the reasoning adopted by the Committee is perverse.4. Dr. K. B. Patil Bharaswadkar and Mr. P. S. Patil, learned AGPsappearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respective petitions supportthe decision of the Committee. They would invite attention of thisCourt to the order in Writ Petition No.9797 of 2017 (at Principal Seat)dated 28.11.2017 in the matter of Machindra Soniram Nagtilak Vs.State of Maharashtra and others with companion matters to contendthat this Court has directed initiation of inquiry in the matters ofvalidities granted to petitioner’s family members. Accordingly, theCommittee has issued show cause notices to those validity holders andmatter is under consideration before the Committee. They wouldtherefore submit that the petitioners cannot be permitted to derivebenefit of validity certificates which are now subjected to re-inquiry[3]
Decision
933 and 934.odt“7.We thus come to the conclusion that when duringthe course of inquiry the candidate submits a caste validitycertificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation ofthe candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimedby the applicant, the committee may grant such certificatewithout calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if thecommittee finds that the earlier caste certificate is taintedby fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committeemay refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate tothe applicant before it.”7.Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of this Court, we donot find that the Committee’s order invalidating tribe claim of thepetitioners is sustainable in law. However, considering the fact that theCommittee has undertaken inquiry as regards to validity holders frompaternal blood relations of the petitioners, it would be appropriate toallow the Writ Petitions subject to final outcome of the inquiry by theCommittee in the reopened cases. Resultantly, we proceed to pass thefollowing order :-ORDERI)Both the writ petitions are partly allowed.II)The impugned decision and order passed by the ScheduledTribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Respondent No.2 dated31.12.2021 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners in boththe petitions is hereby quashed and set aside. [5] 933 and 934.odtIII)The Respondent No.2-Committee is directed to issuevalidity certificate in favour of the Petitioners in both thepetitions for ‘Thakar-Scheduled Tribe’ subject to final outcome ofpending inquiry regarding reopened cases of blood relations ofthe petitioners.IV)In case the Committee recalls the validity certificatesgranted in favour of the blood relations of the petitioners, thepetitioners shall also be liable to be dealt with accordingly.V)Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGEscm[6]