High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 wp 3963.02IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3963 OF 2002Suresh Marotrao Dulewad.. PetitionerVersusThe State of Maharashtra and others.. RespondentsShri A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.CORAM :S. G. MEHARE ANDSHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE :03RD MARCH, 2025.ORDER :.Heard both sides finally at the admission stage. Thepetitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 17th May,2002 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committeeinvalidating his tribe certificate of ‘Mannervarlu’.2.Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitionertenders on record the compilation comprising of list of thevalidity holders and various orders passed by the High Court. Itis submitted that in all there are nineteen validity holders in thefamily as well as old document of mortgage deed of 1345 Fasli(1935 A.D.). He would submit that on the basis of parity, thepetitioner would be entitled for the validity certificate. Amongstthe validity holders, the petitioner's real sister and cousins are 2 wp 3963.02also there. Unless earlier validities are revoked, no differentview can be taken. It is further informed that Savita ShivlingDulewad, cousin of the petitioner is first in time validity holderissued on 19.04.2003.3.Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. P. S. Patilvehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner. He hasplaced on record original papers of Savita. He would submit thatthe order of invalidation of Kailash Gurunath Dulewad passed bythe Scrutiny Committee and confirmed by the High Court inWrit Petition No. 5801 of 1999 have been suppressed, not only bythe petitioner, but also by other validity holders. He has placedon record judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench on05.10.2002 in Writ Petition No. 5801 of 1999 in the matter ofKailash Gurunath Dulewad. It is submitted that it is brazenfraud on the face of the record in suppressing the invalidation ofa close paternal side blood relatives4.He would submit that material pressed into service byKailash by way of affidavits, incompatible school record of hisfather of 1956 and cousin of 1960 was also suppressed by thepetitioner. It is submitted that if the claim of the petitioner isallowed, it would amount to perpetuation of fraud. LearnedAddl. G. P. has shown the papers of first validity holder SavitaDulewad to make out a case that there is suppression ofclinching record. It is further contended that, so far as mortgagedeed of Fasli 1345 is concerned, it was not relied upon by the 3 wp 3963.02petitioner. No vigilance was conducted in that regard.Therefore, that cannot be considered for the first time in theHigh Court. He would submit that Committee has rightlyrejected the claim of the petitioner and no interference iswarranted in the impugned judgment and order.5.We have considered rival submissions of the parties. Thereis no dispute on relationship of petitioner with earlier validityholders. Pertinently, there is also no dispute about relationshipof the petitioner with Kailash Gurunath Dulewad, whose tribeclaim was invalidated by the Committee and confirmed by theHigh Court. The genealogy, which is placed on record clearlyindicates that Kailash Gurunath Dulewad is first degree cousinof the petitioner. There is no dispute with order of invalidationof Kailash passed by the Committee and it is confirmed by theHigh Court in Writ Petition No. 5801 of 1999 on 05.10.2002.These orders were not disclosed not only in case of the petitioner,but also while granting validities to other blood relatives whosevalidities are not pressed into service.6.While invalidating claim of Kailash, affidavit of threepersons were discarded by the Committee namely Savita RamdasGodgodwar, Pramod Ramdasrao Godgodwar and Madhav BalajiNilewad. Incompatible school record of Kailash's father of07.08.1956 indicating caste as Manur and record of his unclePandit Dattatraya Dulewad of 27.07.1960 indicating caste asMunurwar was considered by the Committee and the High Court 4 wp 3963.02for rejecting his tribe claim. He was relying on validities issuedto the maternal side relatives. It is noticed that the incompatibleschool record which was considered in the case of Kailash wasnot disclosed by the petitioner as well as the validity holders.Kailash being close relative, it was the duty of the petitioner tocome with clean hands and disclose the orders of invalidation.7.Learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted ourattention to the vigilance report conducted in the matter ofRamesh Marotirao Dulewad, who is real brother of thepetitioner. In his case the old record of mortgage deed of 1345Fasli was considered by the vigilance cell. He was also issuedwith the validity certificate by the Committee on 22.08.2008.However, the said mortgage deed has not been pressed intoservice by the petitioner. It is pre-constitutional record havinggreater probative value. This piece of evidence cannot bebrushed aside by the Committee or by this Court.8.We are of the considered view that this incompatible schoolrecord which was considered in the case of Kailash was notpointed out before the Committee either by the party or it couldnot be traced through vigilance. Now we are faced with thesituation that there is incompatible school record of the closerelative in the family, which has not been verified by theCommittee or by earlier coordinate benches.9.This is not an adversarial litigation. There is incompatible 5 wp 3963.02school record, which was not scrutinized by the Committee.Similarly, there is pre-constitutional document of mortgage deed,which is also not verified in the present matter. The recordwhich was before the Committee and the High Court in thematter of Kailash has come before this Court for the first time asit needs to be scrutinized.10.Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service,near about nineteen validities. We have noticed that there wassuppression of clinching evidence as well as non consideration ofprima facie incompatible record. Under these circumstances, wefind it fit to relegate the parties before the Scrutiny Committee.We, therefore, pass following order.O R D E R(i)The writ petition is partly allowed.(ii)The impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2002passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is quashedand set aside.(iii)The tribe claim of the petitioner is relegated to therespondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee for conducting inquiryafresh after following due procedure of law and after extendingopportunity of hearing to the parties. 6 wp 3963.02(iv)The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on24.03.2025.(v)Original files produced by the learned Addl. G. P. bereturned to the learned Addl. G. P.[SHAILESH P. BRAHME J.] [S. G. MEHARE, J.]bsb/March 25