Vidya d/o Shivaji Metalwad v. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai - 32
Case Details
946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5202 OF 2022 Vidya d/o Shivaji Metalwad … PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai - 32 Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Kinwat, Headquarter Aurangabad, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO.5432 OF 2022 Vivek s/o Shivaji Metalwad … PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai - 32 Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Kinwat, Headquarter Aurangabad, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad ... … RESPONDENTS 1. 2 1. 2
Legal Reasoning
Advocate for Petitioner/s : Mr. C.R. Thorat Addl.G.P. for respondent/State : Mr. S.G. Sangale … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.J. DATE : 12.09.2023 1/7 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners who are siblings are challenging the common order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding under Section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 thereby confiscating and cancelling their certificates of ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe. 3. We have heard both the sides finally at the stage of admission. The petitioners’ claims have been assessed by the scrutiny committee with the following genealogy furnished by their father : Eranna Metalwad Malu Metalwad Mohan Metalwad Gangaram Metalwad Bhumanna Metalwad Laxman Erba Datta Shankar Ganpati Maroti Jalba Eranna Hanmant Shivaji Sulochana Kamal Anita Madhav Vikas Balaji Sheshrao Uttam Sambhaji (v.h.) Maroti Savita Anita shobha (v.h.) Vidya Vivek (petitioners) Dilip Madhav Archana Kirankumar Yogesh Sumit 4. As can be seen the petitioners have been relying upon several validities in the family, to substantiate their claims of belonging to the ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe. The Committee in the impugned order 2/7 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt has even given a table in respect of the validities and invalidities in the family with a specific date : Sr. No. Name of the Claimant 1. Sheshrao Ganpati Metalwad Relation with applicant No.1 Result of the Caste Claim Date of Result Cousin uncle Invalid 21.08.1997 Remark 2. Gangadhar Cousin uncle Valid 20.01.2005 Kisanrao Metalwad 3. Dilip Sheshrao Metalwad 4. Madhav Sheshrao Metalwad Cousin brother Cousin brother 5. Kirankumar Uttam Metalwad Cousin brother Valid 13.07.2010 Valid 01.02.2011 Valid 07.05.2011 6. Uttam Ganpati Metalwad 7. Maroti Eranna Metalwad Sumit Uttam Metalwad Yogesh Uttam Metalwad Cousin uncle Valid 25.04.2011 Cousin brother Cousin brother Cousin brother Valid 06.07.2011 Invalid 09.08.2019 Invalid 09.08.2019 The benefit of validity certificate has been obtained by concealing the fact that the proposal of Mr. Sheshrao Ganpati Metalwad blood relative at Sr.No.1, is invalid. As can be noticed, in view of invalidation of claim of Sheshrao Ganpati Metalwad, the Committee has refused to extend the benefit of the subsequent validities to the petitioners by observing that the subsequent validity holders had obtained the validity certificates by concealing the first invalidation of Sheshrao Ganpati Metalwad. In our considered view such analysis of these circumstances is clearly perverse and arbitrary. Needless to state that all these decisions of the scrutiny committees constituted under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 would be in respect of specific individual/s. By virtue of Section 3/7 8. 9. 5. 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt 8 of that Act the burden to substantiate the claim is on the claimants. Even if a family member fails to substantiate his claim and the Committee has rejected it by confiscating and cancelling his caste or tribe certificate, that decision would not operate in rem and would bind only the claimant therein. It is just possible that any other family member at a later point of time may be able to discharge the burden under Section 8 by leading cogent and convincing evidence to satisfy the scrutiny committee and substantiate his claim. In such an eventuality obviously, on an objective scrutiny of the material the scrutiny committee would be obliged to issue certificate of validity upholding the claim, irrespective of the earlier order of invalidation of family member. These decisions of invalidation would not operate as res judicata so as to bind the other family members. For this reason the observation of the Committee that it was not inclined to extend the benefit of the validities in the family to the petitioners because there was first invalidation of 1997 in the matter of Sheshrao Ganpati Metalwad which was concealed is not legally sustainable. 6. The Committee has thereafter made certain observations castigating the individual validity holders to demonstrate as to how they have obtained certificates of validity by resorting to some concealment of contrary record or by indulging into manipulation, which according to the Committee would constitute fraud. It has also decided to undertake a rescrutiny of all these validity holders in the light of the decision of 4/7 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt Supreme Court in the matter of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Devrao Bhivapurkar and Ors.; (2008) 9 SCC 54. 7. We need not, in these matters, deal with the powers and jurisdiction of the scrutiny committees to undertake a review or reconsideration of the claims of the validity holders on the ground of fraud. Similarly, even the circumstances being relied upon by the Committee would ultimately demonstrate a fraud also cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Those will be the issues which would be directly and substantially in issue and will have to be considered and dealt with in the matters of those validity holders who would be issued with the notices to show cause. Even those validity holders are not before us and we should be avoiding to make any comments which would have some bearing on their rights in those matters. The fact remains that the Committee though has made observations regarding fraud having been practised by the validity holders, has not made any observations to the effect that no process as contemplated in the Rules of 2003 framed under the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 were followed. If that be so, till the time their certificates of validity are not confiscated and cancelled by undertaking due process of law, the petitioners cannot be deprived of having a validity based on these certificates of validity. 8. True it is that independently the impugned order refers to some record which according to it is a contrary record of the petitioners 5/7 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt blood relations, wherein, the entries have been recorded as Munurwad, Munurwar, Munur, Mali. The Committee has also commented upon some manipulation in the school record of some blood relations of the petitioners, wherein, word ‘rlu’ has been stated to be inserted subsequently and somewhere letters ‘rlu’ or ‘lu’ have been added to the word ^equqjok* or ‘Munurwar’. 9. However, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing the consequences as contemplated in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; WP No.6320/2017, if and when the certificates of validities in the family are confiscated and cancelled in the matters which the Committee has decided to reopen. If that be so, as we have observed herein above, since the certificates of validity have been issued by undertaking necessary process and even by resorting to vigilance inquiries the petitioners cannot be deprived of having certificates of validity whose validity can be made subject to the final out come of the matters to be decided by the Committee in respect of the validity holders. 10.
Decision
The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe, which shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the committee in the reopened matters. 6/7 946 and 947.WP.5202.22.odt 11. 12. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. Rule is made absolute. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 7/7