Writ Petition No. 268 of 2022 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
WP 268 22 +.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 268 OF 2022 Harshal s/o Babu Shinde, Age 25 years, Occ. Student, Original r/o. A/p. Katgaon Tq. & Dist. Latur. Presently residing at Samarthnagar, Survey No. 3, Near Old Water Tank, Dighi, Tq. & Dist. Pune. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, Through its Secretary. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary. 3) Dr. D.Y. Patil Institute of Technology Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri Colony, Pune, Maharashtra, Through its Principal. 4) Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganeshkhind Road, Ganeshkhind, Pune Through it’s registrar. … Petitioner … Respondents. …
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners’ cousin paternal uncle Suryakant and cousins Soham, Chaitanya, Pawan, and Pooja, have been granted validities by the Committee by following due process of law. The Committee has now sought to take exception to that order by observing that the conduct of the then Committee members was dubious. It was headed by one V.S. Patil. We need not deliberate on this. So long as the certificates of validity issued by following necessary procedure in accordance with law are not confiscated and cancelled in accordance with law as is prescribed under section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, the committee could not have refused to extend the benefit of the validities in the family by questioning the functioning of the then scrutiny committee. 10. We do not intend to comment on the powers of the Committee to undertake such review or reopen the inquiries. Even if it has such a power, we do not intend to make any observations touching the circumstances which according to the Committee constitute fraud, for two reasons. Since it is an issue which is directly and substantially in issue under consideration of the Scrutiny Committee we cannot make any observation which could 4/5 WP 268 22 +.odt have some bearing on that inquiry. Secondly, the validity holders are not before us. Therefore, we also do not intend to cause any prejudice to them by making certain observations touching the alleged fraud. We leave it at that. 11. So long as the certificates of validity are not confiscated and cancelled by resorting to due process of law, in our considered view, its advantage cannot be denied to the family members. 12.
Arguments
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.S. Shinde. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2022 1) Veankatesh s/o Babruwan Shinde, Age 25 years, Occ. Student 1/5 WP 268 22 +.odt 2) Pooja d/o Babruwan Shinde, Age 29 years, Occ. Student Both r/o. Lane No. 5, Girvalkar Nagar, Opp. Netizans Digital Zone, Barshi Road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya Mumbai- 32, Through its Secretary. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad Through it’s Member Secretary … Petitioners … Respondents … Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.A. Jagatkar CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 07.09.2023 PER COURT : Heard. 2. Though these are two separate petitions by three family members, we propose to decide both these petitions simultaneously. 3. 4. The petitioners are challenging the orders of invalidation. In view of the urgency inasmuch as the petitioners are seeking to undertake education, we have taken up the matters for final disposal at admission stage. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners 2/5 WP 268 22 +.odt claim to be belonging to ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe. They had substantiated their claim by leading school record of their ancestors. There were no contrary entries. Even in the old revenue record, the petitioners’ ancestors were described as ‘Thakur’. Only one inconsistent entry of ‘Maratha’ of the year 1973 has been relied upon by the committee to discard their claim. He would further submit that there are several validity hoilders in the family. Their cousin paternal uncle Suryakant is a validity holder. His three issues Prashant, Pooja and Pawan also possess validities. Even Suryakant’s two nephews Chaitanya and Soham are the validity holders. The committee has not disputed the genealogy. In fact, Soham, Chaitanya, Pawan, and Pooja have been granted certificates of validity pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14588/2021 and connected matters. 6. Learned A.G.P. opposes the petitions. He submits that the committee could notice a contrary entry of petitioners’ cousin wherein she has been described as ‘Maratha’. The committee has appropriately applied area restriction and even affinity test. The committee has also recorded appropriate reasons why it was not inclined to extend the benefit of validities in the family to the petitioners. The committee has decided to reopen these validities. Some of them had obtained validities relying upon the maternal side relations. Some validities were issued by a committee headed by one Mr. V.S. Patil and the conduct of which committee was found to be dubious. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. Even after careful perusal of the impugned order it appears that the committee could resort to and has referred to only one contrary entry of Vijayabai Gangaram Shinde in the school record wherein she has been described as ‘Maratha’ which entry is of 1973. As against this, the impugned order refers to the school record of various other relations and even has referred to the revenue record of the ancestors wherein they have been described as ‘Thakur’. Though the committee has also referred to some 3/5 WP 268 22 +.odt entries wherein the petitioners relations have been shown to be ‘Thakar’, simultaneously there is a revenue record showing that the petitioners ancestors were ‘Thakur’. There cannot be a dispute that the decision of the committees in such proceedings are to be taken on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and strict proof is not required. If there is record substantiating petitioners claim of belonging to ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe, there is no reason why that should be ignored even if there are some contrary entries. 8. The committee has then refused to extend the benefit of number of validities in the family by resorting to area restriction and by making observations to demonstrate as to how the validities were obtained by resorting to fraud or were issued by a dubious committee. 9.
Decision
The Writ Petitions are partly allowed. 13. The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set aside. 14. The respondent-scrutiny committee shall immediately issue certificate of validity to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe, which shall be subject to final outcome of the matters which the committee has reopened of the validity holders. 15. The learned A.G.P. shall immediately communicate this order to the Scrutiny Committee. 16. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. 17. The writ petitions are disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 5/5