SANGEETA CHANDRAPRAKASH MANDEWAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:8893-DB 931-WP3866-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2025 SANGEETA CHANDRAPRAKASH MANDEWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... AND 936 WRIT PETITION NO. 3871 OF 2025 SWATI RAJESH MANDEWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … AND 941 WRIT PETITION NO. 3877 OF 2025 1. ARYAN BALAJI MANDEWAD 2. DEEPIKA CHANDRAPRAKASH MANDEWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Vivekanand U Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners in all WPs Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondents-State in all WPs .… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 21.03.2025 PER COURT :- . The petitioners are challenging a common judgment and order of the scrutiny committee dated 13.03.2025 whereby, in 1 of 6 (( 2 )) 931-WP3866-25 a proceeding under section 7 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, the committee has invalidated their ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe
Legal Reasoning
claims. 2. Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal. Learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are being
Decision
disposed of at the stage of admission today itself. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners takes us to the genealogy and states that there is no dispute about it. There are several validities in the family. Validity was granted to one Prerna Omprakash Mandewad by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.11385 of 2021. He submits that some such validities were before the committee, but the committee discarded those only on the ground that invalidation of one Anand Tukaram Mandewad dated 04.04.2003 was actively concealed by all the validity holders while obtaining the validities. According to it, this constitutes fraud and vitiates the validities. Though the committee has now decided to undertake and re-open the validities, till the time those are not recalled successfully, the petitioners cannot be treated differently. They are ready to face the consequences as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar 2 of 6 (( 3 )) 931-WP3866-25 Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 6320 of 2017), and the writ petitions may be allowed. 5. Learned AGP submits that the committee has made observations regarding fraud and has expressed its intention to undertake scrutiny of the certificates issued to the validitiy holders, as invalidation was concealed and no fault can be found with the conclusion of the committee in undertaking the exercise of review and in refusing the validities to the petitioners. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The impugned judgment itself refers to several validities issued to the blood relations. The concealment of invalidation faced by Anand Tukaram Mandewad on 04.04.2003, is being tried to be made capital of by the committee to buttress its conclusion and to substantiate its desire to undertake re-scrutiny of claims of all the validity holders. 8. Apparently, there is one validation in the family of Madhav Tulshiram Mandewad dated 06.01.2003, which was obtained even before the claim of Anand Tukaram Mandewad was invalidated meaning thereby that Madhav Mandewad could not have disclosed 3 of 6 (( 4 )) 931-WP3866-25 invalidation of Anand Mandewad which occurred subsequently. The committee has not recorded specific and precise reasons as to how these allegations were applied to Madhav’s validity. 9. Be that as it may, the committee has refused to recognize Madhav’s validation on the ground that he had relied upon the validities of couple of blood relatives who were not from the parental side. The committee has further observed that a pre-constitutional record in the form of a mortgage written on a stamp of Rs.5/- denomination, was a private document and was not registered with any public office. It has observed that the committee which granted validity to Madhav had relied upon such dubious document. 10. In our considered view, this reasoning of the committee tantamounts to undertaking a review of the matter decided by its predecessor, which power the committee does not possess. It is trite that power of review has to be conferred upon the judicial or quasi judicial authority by a statute. Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 does not confer any power on the scrutiny committee constituted thereunder power to undertake review. This can be understood in the sense that if it is a matter of fraud, every judicial and quasi judicial authority would have inherent power to undertake a review to 4 of 6 (( 5 )) 931-WP3866-25 determine whether the order was obtained by practicing fraud. Such exercise cannot strictly fall in the category of review though the word ‘review’ is frequently used loosely in common parlance and not in the strict sense of power of review which has to be conferred by the statute. 11. Though the committee has observed about concealment of invalidation of Anand as a ground to attribute fraud on the part of the validity holders, it could not have made any observation regarding the evidence that was appreciated by the committee while holding Madhav Tulshiram Mandewad entitled to have a certificate of validity. The committee has resorted to re-appreciation of the pre- constitutional document of 1936, which is grossly illegal. 12. Resultantly, it is a matter of record that Madhav Tulshiram Mandewad who is a blood relative of the petitioners possess a validity right from 06.01.2003. He cannot be attributed with active concealment of invalidation of Anand Mandewad which occurred subsequently. This being the state of affairs, Madhav’s validity would be sufficient to confer the social status on all these petitioners. 13. Apart therefrom, as is mentioned hereinabove, Prerna 5 of 6 (( 6 )) 931-WP3866-25 Omprakash Mandewad was granted certificate of validity pursuant to the order of this court. The petitioners cannot be treated differently. Since, Madhav and Prerna, it can be said that they were issued with certificates of validity by following due process of law, there being no dispute about their relationship with these petitioners, the parameters laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, stand fulfilled. 14. In the light of above, the impugned order cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. 15. 16. 17. The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The committee shall issue certificates of validity to the petitioners which shall be co-terminus with the validity of Madhav Tulshiram Mandewad. 18. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] HRJadhav 6 of 6